Is Pedobaptism REALLY an Apostolic tradition?

Bible Brian
7 hours ago
9 min read

There is a saying that "the historical argument is favored where the Biblical argument is weak". This is certainly the case for Pedobaptism. We are often told that the baptism of young children is a historical tradition going all the way back to the Apostles. This is not unexpected from certain denominations, like Roman Catholicism, which frequently brags of the historical veracity of its traditions, regardless of what Scripture says. However, as many Protestant denominations tend to claim Sola Scriptura, a doctrine in which tradition is held in regard, but not authority, it seems strange.

I believe, and firmly contend, that the Bible, which is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), clearly teaches Credobaptism. If a child confesses faith in Christ, they should not be hindered, but if a child does not confess faith in Christ, baptism is premature, ineffective, and unbiblical. I also believe Pedobaptism is ahistorical. Not in the sense that it was not present in the early Church, but in the sense that I do not believe, for one second, that it can actually trace its origins to the Apostles.

In this article, I do not intend to defend this position. Instead, I'm going to explain how a Pedobaptist could change it. See, I admit that I am a fallible man. It is possible there is some evidence for Pedobaptism I'm just completely unaware of. But what would that look like?

To change my mind on this topic, there are four criteria that must be met together, and a fifth that determines whether I actually become a Pedobaptist. What is necessary is a clear and authentic example of just one Apostle baptising (or commanding to be baptised) one infant. To make me believe the tradition goes back to the Apostles, it must be a historical source. To make me a Pedobaptist, it must be Biblical. Let's look a little deeper.

Clear

Pedobaptists often argue that Pedobaptism is Biblical because the Bible implies that they were when it details whole households that were baptised. There's Lydia's household in Acts 16:15. There's the Philippian jailer's household in 16:33. If we want to be really concrete and say an Apostle personally baptised a whole household, Paul says he baptised the household of Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 1:16. Conspicuously absent from these statements, however, is the presence, much less baptism, of anyone too young to profess faith. This doesn't mean they weren't present, but it does mean we aren't required to assume they were, either.

When dealing with small numbers of people, like individual households, the presence of infants isn't a necessary assumption. Does your household contain such a child? Out of pure curiosity, let's make it a poll:

Does your household contain an infant too young to profess faith?

The answer doesn't necessarily matter, but if even a single person can answer "no" (which I can), then the "household" argument is refuted, simply because "household" does not require, or imply, the presence of infants. In fact, I dare say it's statistically improbable.

But what if we expand the number of people baptised in a given instance? It's all well and good saying three or four households might not contain infants, but what about a crowd of 3,000 people? This is an event we see in the book of Acts, specifically verse 2:41: "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them." Surely infants were involved here? Well, look at the wording. Those who gladly received his word were baptised. This is the common theme when large groups are baptised. We see it again in Acts 8:12, "But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized." When they believed, they were baptised. Believing men were clearly baptised. Believing women were clearly baptised. Babies - which are not normally credited with the ability to believe - were not clearly baptised. Acts 18:8 is an interesting one, because it concerns a household: "Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." Notice, again, belief is specified, age is not.

I could go on. The fact is, while one could feasibly argue that if an infant was in these households, they would have been baptised, one cannot feasibly argue that infants were in these households. Thus, the "household" argument does not fulfil the clarity criteria.

As I noted, the example does not have to be Biblical, as I'm presenting two positions: Pedobaptism is not Biblical, and Pedobaptism is ahistorical. Thus, I will also accept clear examples in historical literature. I am about to discuss early references to infant baptism, but I feel like I'll probably receive an objection or two if I fail to mention Irenaeus, who, in Against Heresies, wrote "Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise."

The reason this fails to fulfil my criteria is that it does not clearly concern Pedobaptism. In fact, I deliberately included the full quote. Pedobaptists usually cut it off after "infants, and children, and youths, and old men". However, Irenaeus follows this up by showing that Christ Himself therefore passed through each life stage. But of course, Christ was baptised as an adult, not a baby. Thus, while this is an authentic writing of Irenaeus, it does not clearly concern baptism of any kind.

Ultimately, the clarity criteria seems, itself, to be clear. What I'm looking for is some text that naturally, and unambiguously, communicates the idea that baptism was performed on someone who could not yet profess faith.

Authentic

For obvious reasons, the authenticity of the example matters. Otherwise, one could feasibly make up an example on the spot. "And lo, on the day that Peter's first child was born, he had the privilege to baptise him with his own hand." - Bishop Bill Ben, April 1st 2025. It just doesn't work. It is just as problematic to cite a pseudepigraphal work, or a mere claim that the Apostles baptised infants.

To my knowledge, Tertullian is the oldest clear and authentic reference to infant baptism. However, he does so in a negative sense, saying "...the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children." (1). This is evidence that the practice already existed by his time, but is not evidence that it is genuine Apostolic tradition. In fact, it seems unlikely that such a well-respected theologian, especially in such close proximity to the Apostolic era, would be unaware that Pedobaptism was an Apostolic tradition.

Following Tertullian, Origen claimed the Church received the tradition of Pedobaptism from the Apostles. In one sense, this can be counted as "authentic", because Origen genuinely did write this. However, I do not consider it "authentic" according to this criteria because it is based entirely on his word. That is, Origen, widely regarded (and officially condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople) as a heretic, claimed that the tradition goes back to the Apostles, but gives no clear evidence himself. Thus, this is a clear and authentic example of Origen claiming the Apostles taught Pedobaptism.

To fulfil the authenticity criteria, a Pedobaptist must find a genuine historical writing that reliably traces the tradition back to the Apostles. If a work is forged, it obviously doesn't count. If a work is not forged, but comes from a notoriously unreliable author, it does not count. If a work is not forged, and comes from a generally reliable author, it must still make some effort to prove any clear claims that the Apostles practiced, or commanded, infant baptism.

One Apostle

There is an important distinction between "this tradition goes back to the Apostolic era" and "this tradition goes back to the Apostles". As previously stated, I don't think one can show that Pedobaptism goes back to the Apostolic era. What I can show, however, is that the false claim to Apostolic authority does. For example, in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, we read "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." Similarly, Paul warns "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:30). These are just two examples in a long list of warnings: "Apostolic" does not mean Apostolic.

Now, if that sort of corruption could occur while the Apostles were alive to personally rebuke it, is it not feasible that some level of corruption could creep in - and even become popular - later on? Scripture is written with the assumption, assertion even, that it will. Thus, it is not enough to simply assert "the Apostles taught...". One must find an Apostle actually teaching! Otherwise, we have no real way of knowing if the teaching in question came from an Apostle, or an "Apostle".

To fulfil this criteria, a Pedobaptist does not necessarily need to find it written that an Apostle personally stood above a baptismal font and sprinkled a child with water. After all, in the aforementioned 1 Corinthians 1, Paul seems to distance himself from the desire to personally baptise anyone, especially in light of the way people were bragging about who baptised them. However, in order to fulfil this criteria, the Pedobaptist must trace Pedobaptism to the group, whether individually, or as a whole.

One infant

Much like Tertullian, I believe it is impermissible to tell a child "you're too young to be a Christian". By this reasoning, if a child seeks baptism, I personally wouldn't hinder them. With that being said, I agree that the delay is preferable. This means you won't actually change my belief much if you can find an Apostle baptising, say, an 8 year old, who has professed, as the Eunuch in Acts 8:37, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Why? Well because I am a Credo-baptist, and Philip said "If you believe with all your heart, you may." So, if an 8 year old believes with all their heart, they may. I see absolutely no issue with that what so ever.

But there comes a point where such a confession is unlikely. Then, as the child gets younger, it becomes meaningless. Then, at a certain point, it just becomes impossible. If the child cannot even pronounce the word "dada", how is it supposed to say "I want to be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"? Much less actually mean it?

So, the infant in question must be too young to profess faith. Otherwise, the example doesn't fulfil any criteria inconsistent with Credobaptism.

Biblical

It will shock no one to hear the words "the Apostles were fallible". Scripture is infallible, but the Apostles themselves were quite human. In fact, if we read the book of Galatians, we find "Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;" (Galatians 2:11). Why was the Apostle Peter to be blamed? Because "they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel" (v14, "they" including Barnabas and the other Jews).

Now, if Peter can make such a colossal, Gospel-impacting mistake, all for fear of being unpopular with the Jews, I have no issue with believing he, and his fellow Apostles, could make a smaller mistake by baptising those who have not professed faith. I do not believe, for one second, that it happened, but I could be convinced. Therefore, you can fulfil the entire criteria - a clear and authentic example of one Apostle baptising one infant - and not make me a Pedobaptist. What you can do is change my position that it is ahistorical. I don't believe the tradition goes back to the Apostles, but I can be convinced that it does if you can find a historical example. To make me a Pedobaptist, all you have to do is find a Biblical example.

Conclusion

I would say my criteria is fair. It examines the claim that Pedobaptism goes back to the Apostles, and gives a reasonable way this claim can be established without outright rejecting it. In the meantime, it sets Scripture in its proper place as the inspired word of the Living God, to which we are not permitted to add, and from which we are not permitted to remove. As Pedobaptism is not found in Scripture, it is an addition, but if it is found in Scripture, it should be extremely easy to fulfil the criteria I have laid down, as it is for genuine Apostolic tradition. Therefore, I will present this promise: If any Pedobaptist can fulfil it, I will immediately renounce Credobaptism, and publicly endorse Pedobaptism in both a followup article, and a post-publication note at the top of this one. Until then, the claim that Pedobaptism is an Apostolic tradition remains, at best, an unproven assertion. At worst, it repeats the error of the Pharisees; laying aside the word of God, that you may keep your tradition.