sign in sign up
<<
Home , Infant baptism, Original sin

Original and Infant By Amanda van der Westhuizen May 2010

I have decided to do an essay on this topic because I have realised how ideas about have permeated our beliefs regarding sinfulness and God’s fairness towards humanity. I decided to track the development of these doctrines from the apostolic to judge the accuracy of both ideas. What emerged is that neither original sin nor as we know it today has scriptural proof or support from early . This essay covers the historical development of the doctrines of original sin and infant baptism and looks at scriptural arguments both for and against two arguments regarding infant baptism: parallel to circumcision and original sin.

It is incorrect that the doctrine of original sin and infant baptism was “always there” or is in the scriptures. The development of this doctrine is a post-NT development. The theology of original sin developed stepwise over the first 4 centuries of in the context of a number of questions: the relation of God to , , the reason for divine , the necessity of , the practice of infant baptism, and the role of the Church in God’s plan of . Furthermore, no evidence of the existence of infant baptism in the 1st and 2nd century churches has been found, although it may have been practiced in small “spurts” although baptism after the personal profession of is the most clearly attested pattern in documents. Thus, by the end of the 2nd century, infant baptism is not discussed in any of the preserved Christian documents. If it had been a prominent practice in the early church, one would expect it to be prominently discussed. In fact, during the first 3 centuries of the Church, adult baptism was the rule and actual conversion of the person was required as a condition before the person could be baptised. Historical evidence shows infant baptism was not a common practice until well into the 6th century.

The historical development of these doctrines

The dealt mostly with other topics than original sin. , the of Lyon (ca. 130-200 AD) lived in a time when false interpretations about were plenty. About 187 AD, he listed about twenty varieties of Christianity. In Irenaeus’ time, original sin is not a part of the Christian faith except in a general way. There were questions, however, about what was lost with ’s sin. Irenaeus was less interested in Adam’s sin than he was in the process of redemption. In Irenaeus’ view, redemption is about restoring something that was lost: humankind’s likeness to God. Irenaeus distinguished between likeness to God and as found in Genesis 1:26. He thought image of God referred to reason and freedom, the rational moral nature of man. Adam did not lose this ability by sin. To Irenaeus, however, likeness to God referred to spiritual similarity to God which Adam lost through sin. According to Irenaeus then, since Adam, human beings are born into a fallen world. However, he also asserted that even fallen, man has .

Justin Martyr (110-165AD), an apologetic, acknowledged the sinfulness of humanity. Adam’s sin meant that humanity lost their capacity for deification, which is given back through Christ’s redemption. It is important to note that Justin’s questions about humanity, sin, and redemption were shaped by the specific historical conflicts in his time, such as the deterministic notions regarding free will of the Stoics. Justin argued that even though humanity had lost its capacity for deification through sin, the capacity to make God-pleasing decisions still remain. Human goodness or evil is not predetermined, which means that humans can take responsibility for evil actions. Adam’s sin, however, did weaken human reason and humanity’s ability to resist evil. Therefore, humanity is in need of divine help to reason and act in responsible manner.

Justin’s understanding of the relationship between Adam’s sin and humanity can be better described as original corruption than original sin. Justin speaks of baptism; the appears to be administered to “persuade” persons who are able to “believe”. He also emphasises choice where baptism is concerned. “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach is true, and undertake to conform their lives to our doctrine, are instructed to fast and pray, and entreat from God the remission of their past , we fasting and praying together with them. They are then conducted by us to a place where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For they are then washed in the name of and Lord of the Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the .” Thus, no mention of infant baptism.

Tertullian (160 – ca. 220 A.D), another apologetic, also reasoned that the first sin changed the human state from blessedness to moral wretchedness. He believed that Adam’s sin brought about an inclination to sin and impels wrongdoing. However, free will is still acknowledged as humanity still remains responsible for the misuse of freedom. Humanity thus has a bias towards sin, corruption and impurity. This bias to sin, however, is not the equivalent to original sin as seen in ’s view of infant baptism. Tertullian rejected the necessity of this custom by reasoning that humanity’s inclination/bias to sin due to Adam was in itself not a sin that requires forgiveness. Rather, adult baptism is what removes individual sin’s and restores humanity to the likeness of God lost through sin. “Let them come when they are growing up, when they are learning, when they are being taught what they are coming to: let them be made when they have become competent to know Christ. Why should innocent infancy come with haste to the remission of sins?”

The fact that Tertullian refers to infant baptism is used as proof by paedobaptists that infant baptism was an accepted practice during the 2nd and 3rd century. However, taking into consideration that Tertullian held in high regard, it is unlikely that he would have vehemently rejected infant baptism had it been an apostolic or generally accepted tradition. Rather, Tertullian’s concerns regarding baptism were around the issue that baptism should only be given to those prepared to accept its responsibilities and live by them. For example, he reasons that if earthly property is not entrusted to minors, heavenly affairs should also not be entrusted to them. Tertullian also used an existing scriptural argument for infant baptism (Matt 19:14 “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of belongs to such as these”) to underscore the importance of teaching and learning and personal knowledge and commitment to Christ – even more reason to delay baptism until these conditions have been fully satisfied.

Origen of Alexandria (185 – 254 AD), a 3rd century theologian, was the first to explicitly coin the term original sin when arguing around the need for infant baptism. “All are tainted with the stain of original sin that must be washed off by water and spirit”. used Gen 3 and other defilement texts such as Psalm 51:5 as scriptural proof of humanity being born with a stain on their souls which needs to be cleaned through baptism and regenerated through the Holy Spirit. However, he argued more on why infant baptism could be necessary rather than whether infant baptism could be used. However, Origin’s philosophical tendencies veered toward Platonic views of the spirit. For example, Origin viewed Genesis 3 events to be allegorical and he transformed it into a cosmic myth. Sin originated in the cosmic, transcendent, not historical realm. The punishment for sin was thus the descent (fall) into the material, historical world. Through this fall, the soul suffered defilement and can only through baptism and the Holy Spirit begin its ascent back into the transcendent realm where it originated. Humans’ sinfulness from birth is also seen as the result of misguided choices in the transcendent realm and has nothing to do with the misguided choices Adam made. However, Adam’s descendents followed his choice of making bad choices.

Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258 AD) described Adam’s sin as a primeval contagion inherited by each person through their physical conception, that it, sexual intercourse. Psalm 51:5 was deemed to be proof of this position. He believed that infant baptism should take place as soon as possible.

Didymus the Blind (313 – 398 AD) contributed to the consensus that Adam’s sin was transmitted through sexual intercourse. Because Jesus was not conceived through sexual intercourse, he was not corrupted by Adam’s sin. In contrast to later theological views, Didymus believed that baptism restored humans to being “sinless and masters of ourselves”.

Other church fathers such as Gregory of Nazianzus , Gregory of Nyssa and John Crysostom believed that original sin can be inherited without babies being born into sin.

Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 – 428 AD) regarded Adam’s sin as the beginning of sin and death of humankind, citing Romans 5:12 as proof. However, Theodore also remained convinced that sin is not inevitable and that humanity still has the ability to reason and make the choice to act sinfully.

Thus, in the early patristic writers references can be found to the origin of sin, the fall and the inheritance of sin. This differs from what is found in later church tradition. The church fathers were more concerned with the origin of death than of sin and how free will interacts with sin. At the heart of the writings of the early church fathers were the conviction that sin had caused an estrangement between God and humanity and that Christ overcame this estrangement through his death and resurrection.

The exact development of infant baptism from an exclusively adult sacrament is lost to historical record. However, it is clear that speculation about the notion of original sin was at axis around which infant baptism developed. It is also important to recognise the context in which infant baptism is mentioned by the apostolic writers such as the surrounding controversy, , or argument.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AC) took the fragments of tradition as discussed above and presented it to the church as divine teaching on original sin and infant baptism revealed through scripture to the early church. Augustine fixed the basic meaning of this doctrine. Augustine’s main concern was the work and the person of Christ and therefore, the universal necessity of Christ’s redemption were considered a core aspect of Augustine’s belief system. The idea of an inherited sin therefore explained why sin is universal, requiring a universal need for redemption.

According to Augustine, human beings are unable to carry out good. Romans 7:18-20 was used as scriptural grounding for this moral impotence that underlies humanity’s sinfulness. Only through the gift and assistance of God’s grace (the power of the Spirit) can human sinfulness be overcome. Sin is thus not a choice. “It was not I, therefore, who caused it, but the sin dwells in me, and, being a son of Adam, I was suffering for his sin which was more freely committed” This moral impotence is thus the core reason Augustine proposed the doctrine of original sin: because of sin, human reason cannot will acts in accordance to God’s will. This directly opposes any notion of free will by humankind. For this reason, Augustine and a British monk were in direct opposition. Pelagius held that humanity has the moral responsibility to obey God, which means that the moral ability for obedience must also exist. While errs towards a self-acquired virtue, this view rejected Augustine’s notion that humans are trapped in sin and cannot choose to live according to God’s will.

Augustine’s original sin doctrine held that both personal and original sin requires the forgiveness of Christ. However, since infants have no personal sin, they only need redemption from original sin, which is the guilt of another residing in them as sin.

The (1545 – 63) “rubber stamped” the doctrine of original sin as proposed by Augustine, which includes the notion that it is sexual intercourse that leads to the transference of original sin from generation to generation. From around 1300, unbaptised infants who died were said to inhabit the “ of infants”. Limbo is in theory part of hell but does not contain any actual suffering because unbaptised infants have not committed any actual sins. But because they are not baptised, they are incapable of the supernatural virtues which come only from God’s grace. The Encyclopaedia says "Here they are excluded from the supernatural excellence of heaven, namely the vision of God, but they do know God and love Him with their perfected natural faculties."

Augustine’s formulation of original sin was also affirmed by Protestant reformers such as and . Both theologians supported the doctrine of which is closely connected to the doctrine of original sin and believed humanity has no free will with regard to resisting sin. Total Depravity or Inability means that humanity is completely unable to find salvation on its own and is only possible if God will it and causes it through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Calvin believed that humanity inherit Adamic guilt from the moment of conception. This state of total depravity results in the complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Adam, as the federal head and representative of the human race, impute the guilt of his sin to all of humanity. “Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the " (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it--such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousing - he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19-21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself”.

Similarly, Martin Luther agreed with John Calvin’s notion of Adamic guilt from the moment of conception. “It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil and inclinations from their mothers’ wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not through Baptism and the Holy Spirit.” Luther also agreed with the doctrine of which held that Mary was conceived free from original sin.

Both Luther and Calvin believed infant baptism is necessary, although Luther also admitted that "It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles.” However, their reasoning underlying the need for baptism beyond original sin and total depravity differs. • Calvin parallels circumcision and baptism by asserting that baptism is for Christians what circumcision was previously for the Jews. This view has subsequently become the view of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches, including the . • Luther, on the other hand, held that baptism is the means of grace through which infants and adults are reborn. As of faith is exclusively God’s work, it does not depend on the faith or actions of the one baptised. Even though baptised infants cannot articulate faith, Luther believed that it is present.

Now that we have briefly seen how the doctrines (some say theories) of original sin and infant baptism have developed, two arguments for infant baptism are examined in more detail.

Arguments for Infant Baptism: Circumcision parallel and original sin

1. Argument Based on Parallel with Circumcision

Circumcision is the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham and should be received by all the members of the covenant. Since baptism is the New Testament form of circumcision, the children of Christians should receive the sign of the covenant by being baptised. Proponents of this argument reason that the book of Hebrews demonstrates that much of Israel’s worship has been replaced by the person and works of Christ. This means that worship in the has New Testament equivalents. For example, the Passover festival was replaced by ’s Supper. Similarly, circumcision was replaced by baptism. Baptism is thus less a statement of faith than an assumption of identity and a sign of covenantal inclusion.

Scriptural proof for this argument

• Colossians 2:11-12a. This scripture is used to draw the parallel between circumcision and baptism. • Acts 16:14-15, 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16. Household baptism of Lydia, Crispus and Stephanas. • Acts 2:38-39. Babies were baptised based on their parents’ faith. Baptism is given to children as well as adults, taking to mean that babies are also to be included in the covenant family.

Scriptural proof against this argument

• Household reported that those baptised, first believed. The argument is that infants are not able to believe the necessary for baptism. • While infants were born into the old covenant and then had to be taught about God, those entering the already know God as they entered through Christ. The fact that people were just born into the Old Covenant was exactly the problem of the Old Covenant according to Jeremiah 31: 34 as even being part of the covenant family didn’t mean one “knew” God. Membership of the New Covenant is limited to those who already God through Christ, which means that no one enters into this covenant without already knowing Jesus.

Thus, in the Old Covenant, people entered the covenant by virtue of birth into the family. Only males were circumcised when 8 days old. As they grew older, they had to be taught to know the Lord. When infant baptism is practiced, children will still have to be taught about the Lord as they get older, even after they have supposedly entered into the New Covenant.

• Acts 21:20-25 it is shown that Jewish converts to Christianity were still free to circumcise their infants, which would have been unnecessary if the children were shown to be part of the new covenant through baptism. In Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council decided that Gentiles don’t need to be circumcised but DON’T use water baptism as the reason for the negative decision. • Acts 2:39. The claim that “children” means that infants are included in the command to get baptised. But “children” here means offspring regardless of age (e.g., Matt 3:9; 10:21). The promise here is for those who repent and are baptised. Since infants cannot repent or do the other things required in the context it doesn’t apply to them. The promise to children was thus fulfilled when they were old enough to do the things before baptism as stipulated in scripture.

2. Argument Based on Original Sin

The doctrine of original sin teaches: 1. The whole human race sinned in Adam when he sinned. Adam's will was the will of the race, so that all men sinned in Adam and rebelled with him when he sinned. 2. When Adam sinned, human nature was corrupted, so that now all men are born with a sinful nature. 3. This sinful nature is the fountain and direct cause of all of man's sins. Man sins by nature and cannot help but sin. 4. Because of Adam's transgression, all men are guilty, under the just "wrath and curse of God," and are liable to the "pains of hell forever." 5. Even newborn babies open their eyes in this world under the "wrath and curse" of God. They are guilty and condemned from the moment of their birth.

Scriptural proof for this argument

• Ps 51: 5. “Surely I was sinful from birth” which means infants are in need of forgiveness from birth. • Romans 5:12. Death entered the world through Adam. • Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature. • Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception. • Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism? • Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism. • Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God. • Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon . • Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic's sins. This is regarded as an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith. • Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith. If Jesus can heal based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize based on someone else’s faith as well. • Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith. This healing is again based on another's faith. • 1 Cor. 7:14 –The New Testament shows that whole households can be saved if one parent is, thus we should baptize all members.

Scriptural proof against this argument

• Ezekiel 18:20 People are not held accountable for the guilt of their forbears. There is a difference between bearing the guilt of sin of fathers and bearing the consequences of sin of forbears. • Romans 7:7-11. Paul described a time in his life, before he was aware of the law, when he was alive before he became a sinner. • Ps 51:5 should not be interpreted literally as David uses a number of figurative expressions. So if v5 can be used to proof that babies are born sinners, then v7 can be used to teach that hyssop will cleanse people from sin. The same argument applies to Job 14:1-4. • Ps 106:37-48; Jeremiah 19:4-5. Infants sacrificed to idols described as “innocent”. • Matthew 19:14; 18:3. The kingdom is for those who are like little children. To enter the kingdom, must be converted and become like little children. If children are sinners, would this not mean that must be converted and become like little sinners? • Matt. 19:13; Mark 10:13-16. Jesus did not baptise the children that came to Him. • Before baptism one must hear, learn, and understand . Mark 16: 15-16; Acts 2:36 (“know assuredly”, 41 “gladly received this message”. Infants can’t hear and learn in this way. • Before baptism one must believe the gospel. Mark 16: 15-16, Gal 3:26-27, Acts 8:5-6, 12; Hebrews 11:6; Romans 10:17. Infants are not able to have the kind of faith necessary before baptism. No examples in the New Testament where infants were baptised on the basis of someone else’s faith. Also need to be able to confess one’s faith in Christ which infants are not able to do. Romans 10:9-10; Acts 8:35-39. • Before baptism one must repent of sins. is a decision to turn from one’s own will to live according to God’s will. Acts 2:36. It involves dying to own will. Romans 6: 1-12; 2 Co 7:10. Infants are not able to die to their own will, to repent, which means a mature understanding of sin and a decision to turn away from sin. Nowhere in the New Testament is it shown that one person can make the decision to repent for another person before baptism. If infants have to repent, it assumes that infants have sinned. • Infants not able to follow instruction before or after baptism. Matt 28:18-20. • Matt. 18:2-5; Matt 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:15. When read in context, “little children” in this context refers to those with . The kingdom of God is about humility and not personal status.

Conclusion

My local church and our larger movement teach adult baptism with faith and repentance as pre-requisites and teaching and instruction also after baptism. However, I do think that the strong Roman Catholic and Protestant presence in South Africa has left some of my church family-members to be vaguer on a deeper understanding on the difference between the Original Sin/personal guilt doctrine of these traditions and the biblical original/inherited sinfulness of humanity. This affects how we understand the mind-blowing effect of entering into the life of Christ at baptism and the constant sanctifying effect of dying to our Adam-nature and living for our Christ-nature.

I also believe that when studying the with someone from the Roman and Protestant churches, it will be helpful to also show how these doctrines had developed. There is a misconception that original sin and infant baptism were apostolic teachings. Once one sees how little fragments of church father letters taken out of context were mistakenly used by Augustine to refute Pelaganism, it will be clearer why infant baptism was not an apostolic church practice.

Finally, I now can also understand how the RC church came to the conclusion the their should be celibate as the “evil” of original sin were projected on sexual intercourse, which is of course a God-given gift in the correct context. It is interesting how the negative view of sexual intercourse still persist within many religious circles today.

Some of my sources

Original sin: origins, developments, contemporary meanings. Tatha Wiley Infant Baptism in the early centuries. David Wright Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Everett Ferguson