Baptism is not merely a symbolic rite or optional ritual – it is the sacrament of rebirth and entry into the Church.
From infancy onward, every person bears the mark of inherited sin. (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12)
Psalm 51:5:
“For I was born a sinner – yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.”
Romans 5:12:
“When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.”
Baptism is understood as the means by which original sin is washed away and new life in Christ is given – at any age.
The practice of baptizing infants reflects the conviction that even the youngest members of a believing family belong to God’s covenant community.
Unlike some Protestant traditions that delay baptism until a personal profession of faith, Orthodoxy holds that saving grace is bestowed by Christ even on babes through the Church.
As Saint Augustine of Hippo puts it, infant baptism was already “the firm tradition of the universal Church,” received by “apostolical authority”.
In this article we examine the Biblical, historical, and theological foundations for this practice.
We will also address common objections, and show how an unbroken apostolic succession confirms the Orthodox belief in the necessity of baptizing infants.
Biblical Foundation of Infant Baptism
The Holy Scripture itself provides multiple indications that God’s covenant and promise extend to believing parents and their children.
For example, on the day of Pentecost, Peter preached in Acts 2:39:
“This promise is to you, to your children, and to those far away—all who have been called by the Lord our God.”
Explicitly linking the gift of the Holy Spirit and entrance into the covenant with both the adults and their offspring.
Jesus repeatedly welcomed little children to Himself, saying “Let the children come to me…for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14)
This blessing of children implies that nothing should bar them from the grace of God’s kingdom – which in Christian practice is administered in baptism.
Now I’m confident multiple protestants will ask “So, unbaptized babies go to hell?”
The answer is simple: “NO!”
But if they could’ve been baptized, but their parents delayed it, their parents are responsible and this unfortunate event – the baby dying unbaptized, is their fault.
Soon we will learn that some of the Church Fathers preached baptizing babies as fast as possible, and not even waiting until the 8th day. But for now let’s keep talking about the Bible.
In the book of Acts we can find several household baptisms that implicitly included children.
When Lydia believed, “she and her household were baptized” (Acts 16:15):
“She and her household were baptized, and she asked us to be her guests. “If you agree that I am a true believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my home.” And she urged us until we agreed.”
Shortly afterward the Philippian jailer’s entire family “was baptized, he and all his” (Acts 16:33) when he believed in Christ.
“Even at that hour of the night, the jailer cared for them and washed their wounds. Then he and everyone in his household were immediately baptized.”
In Cornelius’ case, Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit before baptism, prompting Peter to declare: “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (Acts 10:47–48)
“Can anyone object to their being baptized, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?” So he gave orders for them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Afterward Cornelius asked him to stay with them for several days.”
These examples show the apostles applying baptism to whole believing households without exception, since there is no exclusion of infants mentioned.
St. Paul likewise observes that children of a believing spouse are “holy” (set apart) – “Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy” (1 Corinthians 7:14).
“For the believing wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the believing husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not be holy, but now they are holy.”
Then we can read in Romans 11:16:
“If the first part of the dough is holy, so is the whole batch; if the root is holy, so are the branches.”
Also in Genesis 17:7:
“I will establish My covenant as an everlasting covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.”
Children in mixed-faith marriages are considered holy, meaning they are set apart and have a special place in God’s plan due to the faith of one parent. (if both parents are Christians, even better) and the baptism of children is a promise to God that the child will be raised in the Faith.
Furthermore, the Great Commission itself embraces disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19–20)
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Jesus commanded the apostles to baptize “them” (plural) in the triune name, and explicitly promised His presence “to the very end of the age”
There is no Scriptural age limit placed on this command.
In effect, the Old Testament pattern of including children in God’s covenant (e.g. Hebrew infant circumcision) flows naturally into the New Covenant: all who enter the covenant, young or old, receive the sign of baptism.
Continuity Between Old and New Testament Covenants
The Church is Israel, we are the people of God, and there is a continuity in the covenant.
In the Old Testament, entry into God’s covenant community was marked by infant circumcision (Genesis 17:10–12).
“This is the covenant that you and your descendants must keep: Each male among you must be circumcised.”
For context, this is God talking to Abraham, and we are descendants of Abraham too.
Romans 4:11:
“And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but are not circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.”
Colossians 2:11:
In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands.
Now let’s go back to Abraham.
He was 80 years old when he got circumcised, because that’s when he received the covenant.
As similar to how an atheist that found Jesus Christ at 40 years old, is getting baptized at that age.
Let’s keep reading from Genesis 17:11-12
- You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.
- From generation to generation, every male child must be circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. This applies not only to members of your family but also to the servants born in your household and the foreign-born servants whom you have purchased.
Every male child of Israel was circumcised on the eighth day as the sign of belonging to God (Gen 17:12).
In Colossians 2:11–12 St. Paul describes Christian baptism as a “circumcision made without hands” (by Christ), suggesting that baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign.
- When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision—the cutting away of your sinful nature.
- For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.
Just as circumcision was given even to babies, so baptism is given in the New Covenant without regard to age.
The parallel is explicit: Abraham was “justified” by faith before circumcision (Romans 4:9–11), just as Cornelius received the Spirit and was acceptable to God before he was baptized.
Romans 4:9-11:
- Now, is this blessing only for the Jews, or is it also for uncircumcised Gentiles? Well, we have been saying that Abraham was counted as righteous by God because of his faith.
- But how did this happen? Was he counted as righteous only after he was circumcised, or was it before he was circumcised? Clearly, God accepted Abraham before he was circumcised!
- Circumcision was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous—even before he was circumcised. So Abraham is the spiritual father of those who have faith but have not been circumcised. They are counted as righteous because of their faith.
In other words, God’s covenant promises (forgiveness, election, Spirit, salvation) do not depend on a person’s maturity; the sign is applied in love to children too.
If you baptize your children you will be forced to take good care of them and raise them in the Faith, because otherwise their sins will fall on you for your mistakes.
When Peter asked whether the Gentiles should be baptized, his criterion was the gift of the Holy Spirit, not an age or confession.
Once the Spirit had fallen on all who heard Cornelius’ household, Peter replied, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized” (Acts 10:47)
Now let’s put this in context with (1 Corinthians 7:14).
“For the believing wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the believing husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not be holy, but now they are holy.”
This shows that Gentile converts – including children in their household – were to be brought into the covenant by water baptism, continuing the pattern begun in Israel.
Likewise, the prophecy Peter quoted at Pentecost (“I will pour out my Spirit…both on you and your children” Joel 2:28 in Acts 2) ties together the Abrahamic promise (“to your offspring, your children” — see Genesis 17:7) and the new outpouring of grace.
Acts 2:17:
“‘In the last days,’ God says, ‘I will pour out my Spirit upon all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams.”
Joel 2:28:
“Then, after doing all those things, I will pour out my Spirit upon all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your old men will dream dreams, and your young men will see visions.”
Genesis 17:7:
“I will confirm my covenant with you and your descendants after you, from generation to generation. This is the everlasting covenant: I will always be your God and the God of your descendants after you.”
Covenant continuity is also seen in the concept of household faith.
In the Old Covenant, believing families were consecrated together, children included. (Ezra 10:1)
“While Ezra prayed and made this confession, weeping and lying face down on the ground in front of the Temple of God, a very large crowd of people from Israel—men, women, and children—gathered and wept bitterly with him.”
“a very large assembly of Israelites—men, women, and children—gathered around him”
The gathering of a large assembly indicates the communal nature of repentance and the seriousness of the situation.
It reflects the biblical principle that sin affects the entire community, not just individuals (Joshua 7)
The inclusion of men, women, and children highlights the collective responsibility and the need for the whole community to turn back to God.
Again… children are mentioned as well.
In the New Covenant, household baptisms replace household offerings.
Thus 1 Corinthians 7:14 shows children of one believing parent “holy,” and Acts records both Jewish and Gentile households entering the Church together.
This continuity suggests that God’s pattern is to welcome children of believers into the covenant community from the beginning.
As the Saint Apostle Paul teaches, “in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith… for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:26–27)
- For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
- And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.
This encompasses male and female, Jew and Gentile, and implicitly their children as well.
In sum, the new covenant fulfills and transforms the old: as infants received the old sign, so now they must share in the new sign and blessing of baptism.
The difference is, baptism saves us…
1 Peter 3:21 we can read:
“And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
It is important for the baptism to happen as early as possible in someone’s life because it is a promise, and an act of faith from the parents, to present the child to the Lord.
As the dedication to the temple was in the old testament done by faithful parents.
Luke 2:21-24:
“Eight days later, when the baby was circumcised, he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel even before he was conceived.
Then it was time for their purification offering, as required by the law of Moses after the birth of a child; so his parents took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord. The law of the Lord says, “If a woman’s first child is a boy, he must be dedicated to the Lord.” So they offered the sacrifice required in the law of the Lord—“either a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.””
As you can see, not the child decides what happens – the parents decide, and through their works show their Faith.
Once baptized, the child must be raised right because there’s no second baptism to wash the sins again…
Ephesians 6:1
“Children, obey your parents because you belong to the Lord, for this is the right thing to do.”
Colossians 3:20
“Children, always obey your parents, for this pleases the Lord”
Children must enter the Church as soon as possible, and must be raised in the fullness of the Faith and this is a reponsabilitate of the parents.
Proverbs 22:6
“Direct your children onto the right path, and when they are older, they will not leave it.”
Testimonies from the Early Church Fathers
The practice and understanding of infant baptism was confirmed by the earliest Christians and Fathers of the Church. Their writings consistently treat infant baptism as apostolic tradition.
The following quotes will be from Saints and also from people that opposed infant baptism (showing that it was part of the Church).
For example, Origen (anathematized) (c. 185–254) explicitly notes that “the church had a tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to infants”
In discussing Luke’s Gospel he observes that “little children are baptized ‘for the remission of sins’…‘No man is clean of stain…For this reason, even small children are baptized.’”
Origen thus acknowledges both the practice and its theological rationale (that all human beings inherit sin).
Similarly, St. Augustine of Hippo (4th–5th century) argued against Donatist objections by noting that infant baptism was “the firm tradition of the universal Church” handed down apostolically.
Liturgical texts and canons from the early 3rd century likewise presuppose infant baptism. The Apostolic Tradition ascribed to Hippolytus of Rome (c. 215) instructs:
“First baptize the small children…If they are unable to speak for themselves, let their parents or other relatives speak for them”
This order of baptism (“children first, then men, then women”) shows that infant baptism was normal, with other people close to the child speaking on behalf of the infants – exactly as Orthodox practice today.
At the same period St. Cyprian of Carthage convened a council when a bishop suggested delaying baptism until the eighth day (to mirror circumcision).
Cyprian and the council rejected any delay, insisting that infants be baptized immediately after birth.
They understood baptism as rescuing a child from sin as soon as possible.
Even Tertullian’s writings (North Africa, c. 200 AD) confirm the practice: he argues against it, implying it was common and “not to be frowned upon” that infants were baptized.
Other Fathers explicitly championed baptism from the earliest age. St. Gregory of Nazianzus (4th century) strongly encourages parents:
“Have you an infant child? …Let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit”
This is a clear affirmation that infants too should be anointed (baptized) as soon as possible.
Likewise, Justin Martyr (2nd century) and Cyprian of Carthage taught that baptism washes away original sin even in infants.
In short, the Fathers of the Church – East and West – uniformly attest that infant baptism was practiced and received as apostolic faith.
To paint a better picture of the consensus among Church Father, here are more quotes:
Aristides (c. 140 AD)
“And when a child has been born to one of them (i.e. Christians), they give thanks to God (i.e. baptism); and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who has passed through the world without sins.”
Justin Martyr (c. 110–165 AD)
“And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years…”
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 AD)
“He (Jesus) 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.”
Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD)
“And they shall baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.”
Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 AD)
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.”
Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258 AD)
“But in respect of the case of the infants… this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism… we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.”
Gregory Nazianzen (c. 329–390 AD)
“Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit.”
John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD)
“We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins.”
Ambrose of Milan (c. 340–397 AD)
“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity.”
Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD)
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned… nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic.”
Jerome (c. 347–420 AD)
“Tell me, pray, and rid me of all doubts, why little children are baptized? That their sins may be forgiven them in baptism.”
Apostolic Constitutions (c. 390 AD)
“Baptize your infants also and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of God.”
Council of Carthage (418 AD)
“Canon 2. Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized… let him be anathema.”
The purpose of the quotes above, it’s solely to show you that infant baptism was indeed left by the Apostles. That’s why I quoted both people from the True Church and people that were anathematized by the Church.
There is also a conversation to be had about proper baptism, but I am not the right person to talk about this – so you should talk with your Orthodox Priest about this.
Protestant Objections & Refutations
Many Protestants raise objections to infant baptism. Below are some common objections and refutation using Holy Scripture & teachings of the ones close to the Apostles (Church Fathers).
Objection 1: “The New Testament never commands or explicitly shows infant baptism; baptism is only for believers who can profess faith.”
Refutation 1: While no verse literally says “baptize infants,” the Bible strongly implies children are included. As noted above, the promise of salvation in Acts 2:39 comes to “you and your children”.
Jesus’ own ministry affirmed children’s place in God’s kingdom (Mark 10:14).
Moreover, there are several household baptisms (Lydia’s family, the Philippian jailer’s family, Cornelius’ family) where the context strongly suggests children were baptized along with adults.
No New Testament example excludes children.
In fact, preventing a child from Christ’s grace would run counter to the Gospel.
Thus Scripture’s spirit and the Church’s apostolic practice support infant baptism even if it is not spelled out in a single verse.
Objection 2: “Infants cannot repent or exercise faith, so they should not be baptized.”
Refutation 2: This objection assumes baptism is only for those who can make a conscious faith decision.
However, faith itself is a gift of God given through baptism.
In Scripture we see God working faith in those unable to ask: Cornelius and all in his household received the Spirit (Acts 10:44–48), and Peter immediately baptizes them despite their not yet professing by mouth (Acts 10:47–48).
The logic is that God sometimes grants gift first and understanding follows.
Jesus also commended the simplicity and purity of children – “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (Luke 18:17) – meaning we should humbly receive salvation as it comes.
Regarding repentance, infants have inherited sin (Romans 5:12) and benefit from Christ’s mercy; like David’s newborn, they are “purge(d) from sin” by God’s grace.
Finally, we note St. Paul’s point: where one believer sanctifies an unbelieving spouse, “otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy” (1 Corinthians 7:14).
The children of the faithful are set apart and belong to God.
Baptism seals that holiness; it does not require prior knowledge but conveys God’s promise.
Objection 3: “Old Covenant circumcision was given to Jewish infants, but baptism is not the same sign; it requires personal faith.”
Refutation 3: Baptism is the New Covenant counterpart of circumcision, as St. Paul teaches (Colossians 2:11–12).
Circumcision in Abraham’s day was given to infants as the sign of the covenant (Genesis 17:12).
By analogy, the new sign (baptism) also extends to the children of the covenant community.
Baptism brings Christian Israel into the “covenant of Christ,” replacing the old sign.
If one accepts that Israelite babies were included in God’s promise, consistency demands that Christian babies likewise be included (as implied by Acts 2:39 and the household baptisms).
Furthermore, baptism is for all nations (Matt 28:19), not only those born Jewish, so it must cover children of both Jewish and Gentile believers.
In fact, understanding baptism this way highlights God’s initiative: Abraham, Cornelius, and the Philippian jailer’s family all show that God acts first.
Therefore baptism continues the covenant while transcending the old boundary of “Jewishness.”
Objection 4: “Historically, baptism was often linked to personal conversion and instruction, not babies.”
Refutation 4: In the first centuries, the normal baptism was of catechumens.
However, the Church always made provision for special cases.
The Fathers’ writings show that infant baptism was widespread and unquestioned (see citations above).
Even Tertullian’s objections (c. 200 AD) testify to an already established practice.
By referring to Matthew 19:14 (“Let the little children come to me”) and 1 Corinthians 7:14, they treated children as fit for God’s household.
In short, lack of “explicit command” is not absence of endorsement; Christ gave His Church authority over baptism (Matt 28:19–20), and the apostolic community understood this to include infants.
Objection 5: “Baptism does not save; faith does. Infants can be saved without baptism.”
Refutation 5: Orthodox theology affirms that faith and baptism together effect salvation (Mark 16:16).
While God’s mercy is boundless, He himself instituted baptism as the ordinary channel of grace.
In Scripture, baptism is commanded right alongside faith; Jesus said, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).
Withholding baptism means withholding the means Christ established.
The idea that infants are saved “regardless” is not found in the New Testament.
On the contrary, 1 Peter 3:21 calls baptism “now saves you,” linking it directly to Christ’s action in resurrection.
It is unthinkable to deny baptism’s gift to infants: such denial would make the Church’s own sacraments inconsistent with Christ’s promises.
Baptism is the graciously given remedy for original sin from the very start of life.
Conclusion
Infant baptism is a non-negotiable part of the faith handed down from the Apostles.
It is rooted in Scripture (Jesus’ blessing of children, household baptisms in Acts, and covenantal promises) and in the unanimous testimony of the Church Fathers.
Baptizing infants affirms that no one is outside God’s mercy or the Church’s embrace, not even from their very first moments.
Moreover, because sacraments flow through the apostolic ministry, Orthodox baptism connects each new member – whether baby or adult – to the same Church Christ established.
As parents that love your children, why would you want to strip your children of:
- The salvation that comes through Baptism?
- The unity with Christ that comes through Baptism?
- The putting on Christ that comes through Baptism?
- The washing away of the inherited sin that comes through Baptism?
- The Communions with Christ that comes through the Eucharist, that is given only to people who has been Baptized?
Protestant parents… please let the children come to our Lord Jesus Christ as soon as possible “for for to such belongs the kingdom of God” and they must be one with Christ as soon as possible.
If you have any more objections to infant baptism, please leave a comment here or tag me on X/Twitter @orthodox_sword
God bless!