A Case for Infant Baptism (Gavin Ortlund Response)

Back in July, Gavin Ortland released a

video on the historical evidence for

impant baptism and concluded that the

evidence supports what is called

credtobaptism or restricting baptism to

those who profess Christian faith and

denying it to infants. But he also

admitted the evidence for the

historicity of credto baptism isn't

absolutely conclusive. So in today's

episode, I'll be putting forward a

modest case for infant baptism and

respond to some of Gavin's points

regarding the evidence for infant

baptism. But in order to keep this

episode a manageable length, I won't be

addressing every single point Gavin

made. I'll just go over the major

points. And to promote the channel's

renewed emphasis on charity and fair

scholarship, I sent a copy of this

script to Gavin for review to make sure

that I correctly understood the argument

he made in his initial video. So, let's

jump right in. First, I need to make it

clear that this is not a strictly

Catholic Protestant issue. Most of the

Protestants involved with the

Reformation and those associated with

the confessions from that period

supported infant baptism. Even if I was

not Catholic, I would not be a credo

Baptist or someone who thinks only

believers should receive baptism. That's

because I am unwaveringly convinced of

the evidence for the doctrines of

baptismal regeneration and the necessity

of the practice of infant baptism,

what's often called pedtobaptism.

Because of this, I joined with Anglican,

Lutheran, and many Presbyterians who

also affirmed these doctrines and

disciplines. Gavin grew up Presbyterian,

but left that denomination over the

issue of infant baptism. However, his

brother Dne is a Presbyterian pastor who

holds to the Westminster Confession,

which says, "Not only those that do

actually profess faith in and obedience

unto Christ, but also the infants of one

or both believing parents are to be

baptized." Dne also had this to say

about Gavin. Tell me what he says.

Whatever he says, I agree.

>> Okay. Cuz he's so smart, right?

>> On everything except baptism. But keep

going.

>> Second, when Catholics present evidence

for the historical antiquity of the

church, we need to be careful to not

overstate our case. Frankly, there's

very few doctrines on which we can say

every church father taught X. Because in

many cases, the writings of the fathers

are fragmentaryary or they're focused

only on specific issues. Gavin correctly

notes in his episode that there is a

silence on explicit references to

infants being baptized in the first 150

years of church history. I noted this in

my dialogue with William Lane Craig

which was recorded before Gavin's

episode released where Dr. Craig

recommended that Catholics ditch infant

baptism. While there's some silence on

infant baptism in the early historical

record, even people like RC Sproul admit

that it's it's testified too early.

There isn't opposition to it. The only

opposition in the early church was

people said, "Well, you should wait 8

days to baptize an infant cuz that's

when circumcision was done." I told Dr.

Craig that his suggestion was basically

a no-go, especially because of the

historical evidence for infant baptism,

which even many Protestants accept. But

notice I qualified the nature of the

historical evidence in my response,

though I later said in the interview

that there were other reasons people in

the early church delayed baptism.

However, as we'll see, overreaching

arguments from silence can lead to

faulty conclusions. Third, I think the

best argument for infant baptism isn't a

cumulative case from historical

evidence, but a theological argument. We

know who should be baptized by answering

the prior question, what is baptism for?

You would then get this kind of informal

argument. One, baptism is for spiritual

regeneration. Two, all people need

spiritual regeneration. Three,

therefore, all people who can be

baptized should be baptized. Keep in

mind, this isn't a strict logical

argument. And there's a few assumptions

being made in the premises. For example,

there can be spiritually unregenerate

people who should not be baptized. These

include adults who vocally reject

baptism, children whose parents vocally

reject baptism, and unborn children

whose unique living condition makes

baptizing them unfeasible or some cases

impossible without harming them. Notice

also, and this will come up later when I

assess Gavin's arguments, that there is

a difference between doctrine, what the

faithful are allowed or bound to

believe, and discipline, what the

faithful are allowed or bound to do. In

many cases, the church can have uniform

doctrine, but it takes time for correct

disciplines to be fully implemented

throughout the church that are in

harmony with said doctrine. In this

case, infant baptism is a discipline.

And I agree many people in the early

church were inconsistent in applying

this discipline. But baptismal

regeneration is a doctrine and the

evidence for the antiquity of this

doctrine is overwhelming. So the case

for infant baptism rests on two

premises. The first is that baptism

saves us from sin. It spiritually

regenerates us and communicates the

grace of justification. Baptism is not a

sign we have already been justified or

saved from sin. Baptism is, as 1 Peter

3:21 says, that which saves us. The

second is that all people need spiritual

regeneration, and so we ought to baptize

infants. This premise is needed to

address members of denominations like

the Church of Christ who believe in

baptismal regeneration but do not

practice infant baptism. See my dialogue

with Church of Christ minister Marco

Aoyo on this subject here on the

channel. And speaking of Church of

Christ, Gavin cites Ever Ferguson's

book, Baptism in the First Five

Centuries, in defense of his claims

about the historicity of Infant Baptism.

And Ferguson is a member of the Church

of Christ. That doesn't mean he can't be

an objective scholar. But Ferguson's

book does reach two conclusions that are

amendable to his denomination. They are

the historical evidence for infant

baptism is unclear, but the historical

evidence for baptismal regeneration is

abundantly clear. And Ferguson isn't the

only scholar to reach this conclusion.

The Baptist scholar GR Beasley Murray

writes this. In the light of the

foregoing exposition of the New

Testament representations of baptism,

the idea that baptism is a purely

symbolic right must be pronounced not

alone unsatisfactory, but out of harmony

with the New Testament itself.

Admittedly, such a judgment runs counter

to the popular tradition of the

denomination to which the writer

belongs. The extent and nature of the

grace which the New Testament writers

declared to be present in baptism is

astonishing for any who come to the

study freshly with an open mind. So that

would be my primary theological argument

for the doctrines related to infant

baptism. But I'll save an exhaustive

defense of it for a future episode.

Instead, let's look at some of Gavin's

points on the history of the discipline

of infant baptism. First, let's just

assume for the sake of the argument

Gavin was correct that the apostles

didn't formally institute this

discipline because of how baptism is

described in the writings of the first

150 years of church history. Most of the

apostles would have died before most

Christians were born from Christian

parents rather than being converts to

the faith as adults. In this case,

infant baptism would be something the

Holy Spirit guided the church

incorrectly understanding as the proper

application of the doctrine of baptism.

And so, it could still be obligatory as

a discipline. Second, Baptists are

inconsistent to not support infant

baptism because of its alleged lack of

evidence because many of these same

critobaptists support a practice that

has even less evidence for it, child

critobaptism. to see what I mean. Here's

Al Mohler on the question of what age a

child needs to be in order to be

baptized.

>> I wouldn't baptize

until a child was very close uh to

adolescence. And uh I was baptized at

nine. So you know adolescence 10 11 12

and early adolescence somewhere around

there I think is is is quite reasonable.

>> Pastor Keith Fosski says this

>> my friend Pastor Tom Buck he was

baptized at age seven and he's never

looked back. And I say, well, you know,

praise the Lord. He knew he was in

Christ. He knew he was a sinner and

needed salvation at seven years old. And

I can say, praise the Lord for that.

>> Some like Ali Beth Stucky place the age

of baptism even earlier.

>> That is the Baptist position that

baptism should always follow belief.

>> But I would say include

>> even if you're it could be three. You

could be three years old, but no, we

don't. I mean, we just don't believe in

baby baptism. And I don't think we see a

clear example of that. But other credto

baptists place the age of baptism much

older, well into the teen years. As this

guest with Todd Freel of Wretched Radio

says,

>> "Let's continue to read the Bible

together. We'll continue to pray

together. We're going to continue to go

to church and talk about the Lord." You

want to nurture that, but you want to

wait on baptizing that child until that

that boy in this case is older. And I

mean much older. I would recommend well

into their teenage years. I would say

somewhere because Todd, a child is going

to adopt the worldview in which he's

raised.

>> However, if you delay baptism until the

teen years, then you have the problem of

children being capable of sinning, which

applies to children at least by age

seven or eight since they can be

disciplined for wrongdoing, but who are

also incapable of being saved from sin

since they can't have the saving faith

that would allow for them to be

baptized. This leads to a gruesome

conclusion when it comes to their

salvation. On the other hand, not

baptizing pre-teens or even minors in

general was the historic norm among

credto Baptists. Caleb Morurell, a

Baptist pastor, has shown in his

research that 18th century Baptists did

not baptize children under the age of 12

and rarely baptize anyone under the age

of 18. Another article says this.

Throughout most of the 19th century, the

youngest candidates for baptisms were

teenagers who were considered adults by

the standards of the day. Most were in

their mid- teens and seldom younger than

13. By the beginning of the 20th

century, the average age had dropped to

about age 13, with younger children ages

10 to 12 increasingly being baptized. By

the mid1 1960s, when the Southern

Baptist Convention began reporting the

ages of those baptized, nearly half were

12 or younger, with over a thousand each

year being six or younger. Even if

Credto Baptists tried to claim the 4th

century fathers for themselves, those

Christians did not baptize children.

David Wright in the book Gavin cited in

his episode says he did not find outside

a questionable example in Augustine

quote identifiable children of seven or

older who were baptized answering the

questions for themselves and says of the

examples of non-infant baptisms among

church fathers they are all of adult

years with St. John Chrysum at 18

probably being the youngest. It's true

we don't see descriptions of infant

baptisms in the first two centuries of

church history. But we also don't see

descriptions of child baptisms during

this period either. If you say, "Well,

the Bible talks about households being

baptized and that would include

children," then that same argument also

applies to infants. I'll link to Jordan

Cooper's extensive discussion on that

topic in the description below. Doug

Wilson, a Baptist who changed his mind

and came to accept infant baptism, also

notes how the silence in the New

Testament cuts both ways in this debate.

>> In my old days, I would point out

there's not a single passage in the New

Testament that shows an infant being

baptized.

>> Mhm.

>> Okay, then that's quite true. But

there's also no passage in the New

Testament showing what I did growing up

in a godly Christian home, going forward

at a Baptist church when I was 10 years

old and getting bapt and then getting

baptized in a Christmas Eve service.

There's nothing about that in the New

Testament either. However, I do think

that the evidence and proper inferences

from it show the most plausible theory

of the origin of infant baptism is that

this comes from the apostles and was

meant to be a universal discipline

within the church. Even if it took time

for this discipline to be recognized,

just as it took time for the apostles

own writings to be recognized as sacred

scripture. So, let's look at the

evidence. Gavin finds it odd that the

earliest instructions for baptism in the

dedicay have things like fasting rules

but no dispensation for infants that

can't follow these rules. His argument

isn't strictly from silence, but it

builds on the way baptism is described

in these ancient texts as seeming to fit

more for adults than infants. But most

people innately understand the moral

principle of ought implies can. You're

only expected to do something if you are

truly able to do it. The dedicay doesn't

make an exception for baptizing someone

who is dying and doesn't have a day to

fast. But that wouldn't mean such

baptisms weren't allowed or practiced.

Indeed, delaying baptism until one's

deathbed became an issue later in church

history. What I find more interesting is

that there are no prohibitions against

infant baptism, even though the dedicay

does contain prohibitions on

administering other sacraments. For

example, the dedicay says, "Let no one

eat or drink of your thanksgiving

eucharist, but they who have been

baptized into the name of the Lord. For

concerning this also the Lord has said,

give not that which is holy to the

dogs." So, while some people were

incapable of receiving the eukarist,

such as those who remained unbaptized,

there is no mention of people who are

incapable of receiving baptism. When it

comes to the second century, Gavin cites

Justin Martyr's defense of the faith to

the Roman emperor. Justin talks about

how people are baptized, saying this. As

many as are persuaded and believe that

what we teach and say is true and

undertake to be able to live accordingly

are instructed to pray and to entreat

God with fasting for the remission of

their sins that are passed. We praying

and fasting with them. The fact that

Justin doesn't mention infants being

baptized doesn't tell us much because

the context is an explanation on how

pagans become Christian, not the

children of Christians. Throughout his

letter, Justin takes great pains to show

Christianity is not a threat to the

civil order and that it is not a folly

of the ignorant. That's why in another

passage, Justin says, "We believe, or

rather indeed are persuaded, that every

man will suffer punishment and eternal

fire according to the merit of his

deed." All Justin is saying is this is

how pagans become Christian. But as I

noted, that doesn't tell us much about

infant baptism. One piece of second

century data not in Gavin's video is St.

Irenaeus's testimony on the subject.

Ferguson is clear that Irenaeus, like

many other early fathers, believed in

baptismal regeneration. William Webster,

a Baptist pastor and critic of

Catholicism historical evidence, even

admits that quote, "The doctrine of

baptism is one of the few teachings

within Roman Catholicism for which it

can be said that there is a universal

consent of the fathers." However,

Erynaeus also says this, "For Christ

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.

Ferguson is skeptical this refers to

baptism saving infants because Irenaeus

uses the word reborn instead of the word

regenerate. But Irenaeus probably uses

those terms interchangeably. For

example, Irenaeus cites non being healed

of leprosy in the Jordan River and then

says this, "For as we are lepers in sin,

we are made clean by means of the sacred

water and the invocation of the Lord

from our old transgressions, being

spiritually regenerated as newborn

babes, even as the Lord has declared,

unless a man be born again through water

and the spirit, he shall not enter into

the kingdom of heaven." Now, I'm not

saying this is proof of infant baptism

in the second century, but it is

evidence you should also consider when

evaluating the evidence Gavin presented

in his video. Ferguson and other critics

have also cautioned against Irenaeus

being a supporter of infant baptism

because Irenaeus refers to innocent

children who have done no evil being

saved. But this doesn't tell us whether

thought they didn't need baptism. First,

even if the critics were correct and

Irenaeus and some early fathers didn't

support infant baptism because they were

wrong about original sin, well, their

error on original sin shouldn't bind the

church to another error on infant

baptism. But second, that's not the

case. We have to say Irenaeus is wrong

here because it's not uncommon to speak

of young children being innocent

precisely because of their baptism. For

a long time in the church's history, the

death of baptized infants was met with a

kind of mini canonization with church

bells even rung. Because since these

children could not forsake the grace of

baptism through something like mortal

sin, we could know that they were saved.

This is important when it comes to

Gavin's treatment of catacomb

inscriptions. He cites Ferguson's

statements regarding various

inscriptions that record children

receiving baptism shortly before death,

not shortly after birth. Ferguson's

argument is that we get a clue in tomb

inscriptions from around this time,

especially early 3rd century, because we

have a lot of these and they suggest in

in in many cases of infant or child

baptism. That's an emergency procedure

kind of deathbred procedure. So here's

an example from the catacomb of

Priscilla. Florentius made this monument

for his well-deserving son Aronianis who

lived 1 year 9 months and 5 days. Since

he was dearly loved by his grandmother

and she saw that he was going to die,

she asked from the church that he might

depart from the world a believer. So

this means that means being baptized. So

the scenario is baby boy almost 2 years

old, sick and about to die. Grandmother

requests baptism. There's lots of other

examples from tombstones around this

time and including with Christian

parents. So you find a lot of these

examples that that Ferguson is drawing

attention to. One of the inscriptions

Gavin shared is for a child named

Florentius. Ferguson thinks the father

may have been Christian but he was

probably pagan since the beginning of

the inscription as recorded in

Ferguson's book says sacred to the

divine dead. A statement that has pagan

overtones. Note also, it is a relative,

the grandmother, who seeks baptism for

this child instead of the parents, who

are probably ambivalent pagans. Many of

the other inscriptions that refer to

delayed baptisms don't tell us if the

parents were Christian. So, these could

be similar cases of relatives

interceding or catechumans who were

waiting to be baptized together as a

family and then baptized a dying infant

prematurely. Or they were pagans seeking

a theological refuge of last resort, if

you will. But we also find inscriptions

that simply refer to infants as being

believers without any mention of an

emergency baptism. Statements like this

one. Iosmus a believer from believers

lies here having lived 2 years, 1 month,

25 days. So here we have a statement

taken at face value would say that this

child was always a Christian which would

imply that they had been baptized early

on in their life or shortly after birth.

Ferguson believes that the practice of

infant baptism developed out of

emergency baptisms, but there is a more

plausible explanation that accounts for

all the data. In Ferguson's other book,

Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life

in the First Three Centuries, he writes,

"Christian inscriptions are epitaps. A

considerable number of these are for the

graves of children. The vast majority

give no indication whether the child was

baptized or not." So we need to ask why

do only a fraction of these inscriptions

mention baptism and when they do mention

it is shortly before death. Now think

about modern epitaps. The graves of most

Catholic children say nothing about the

date of their baptism. If they passed

before they reached the age of reason we

have a safe assumption that this child

is in heaven. Not because children don't

need baptism but because very young

children cannot forsake the graces

received in baptism. The only times

you'd mention baptism would be if a

child received an atypical, precious,

providential gift of baptism right

before death when it is usually received

in a much more mundane way earlier in

life. So why should we think baptismal

inscriptions and catacombs represent

atypical cases at variance to ordinary

infant baptisms? Because by the 3

century, infant baptism is the universal

norm throughout the church as attested

by several writers. For example, we have

Apolitus' instructions for baptizing

infants that can't speak for themselves,

though there is some issue on the dating

of this source. Cyprien and Origin also

attest to the widespread practice of

infant baptism in the early 3rd century.

Origin says, "The church has received

the tradition from the apostles to give

baptism even to little children. For

they to whom the secrets of the divine

mysteries were committed were aware that

in everyone was original sin's innate

defilement which needed to be washed

away through water and the spirit. It

seems during this time the biggest

controversy was whether baptism should

be delayed to the eighth day to

correspond to circumcision. To which

Cyprien says this in respect of the case

of the infants which you say ought not

to be baptized within the second or

third day after their birth and that the

law of ancient circumcision should be

regarded so that you think that one who

is just born should not be baptized and

sanctified within the eighth day. We all

thought very differently in our council.

For in this course which you thought was

to be taken, no one agreed. Well, we all

rather judge that the mercy and grace of

God is not to be refused to anyone born

of man. At this time, and in fact, this

is the only time in church history

before the reformation. We have a

prominent Christian writer, Tertullian,

consistently recommending against infant

baptism. Now, I appreciate Gavin noting

that Tertullian believed baptism

regenerates. So he did not hold the

modern credtobaptist reasons for

delaying baptism. However, Gavin

emphasizes that prior to Augustine there

was more emphasis on the innocence of

children. But Tertullian is a counterex

example to this. And on the soul,

Tertullian writes the following. Every

soul then by reason of its birth has its

nature in Adam until it is born again in

Christ. Moreover, it is unclean all the

while that it remains without this

regeneration. And because unclean, it is

actively sinful and suffuses even the

flesh by reason of their conjunction

with its own shame. Where Tutoian

differs from modern pedtobaptists is

that after he embraced the montinous

heresy, Tutoian followed a

misinterpretation of Hebrew 6 and came

to believe that some postbaptismal sins

could not be forgiven. This is why he

and others delayed baptism so that

people would avoid committing these

unforgivable sins. Tertalian also makes

an argument based on the unfair duties

from his perspective given to godp

parentents which also speaks of the

elaborate nature of infant baptism at

this time. Something that would be

unexpected for a practice that is novel

and only done in emergencies. Rather,

Tertullian's evidence shows that baptism

was an ancient institution even in his

own time. Now, Gavin also cites

Ferguson's argument that Tertullian

would only have opposed infant baptism

if it were novel and not of an ancient

pedigree. But given that Tertullian

ended up opposing theological orthodoxy

when he joined the Montinous heretics, I

don't find this argument to be able to

carry much weight. Besides, while

Tertullian is quick to label other

innovations as abominable heresies, such

as what we now call modalism, Tertullian

never says anything like that regarding

infant baptism. Instead, he offers what

he thinks is a prudential argument for a

preferential alternative, not a

denunciation of a novelty unconnected

with the apostles. Next, the fact that a

few prominent Christians in the 4th

century had delayed baptisms is not

sufficient evidence to say there was a

universal rejection of the infant

baptism norms of the 3rd century. Though

there was certainly confusion over how

the teaching on baptism should be

applied. Consider St. Gregory of

Naziansis who was baptized as an adult.

He did not rebuke his parents for this

act, but that may be because of his

commitment to honoring his father and

mother, but he certainly did not

recommend the same thing. and his advice

on the matter didn't come from Augustine

who wrote after him. For example, some

critics asked Gregory why they should

hurry to be baptized when Jesus was

baptized at age 30. Just like Gregory,

the great saint bluntly tells them,

"Jesus was God. You weren't." And then

he says this, "Nor was there any danger

to him from putting off baptism. But in

your case, the danger is to no small

interests. If you were to depart after a

birth to corruption alone and without

being clothed with incorruption, he then

says, "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." However, in

that same word, Gregory says to wait

until a child is 3 years old, so that

their knowledge may help to sanctify

them in soul and body with the great

sacrament of our consecration. Even

Wright notes the difficulty of parsing

out what the fathers mean on baptism

when they give contradictory and

incomplete answers. It's no wonder that

St. Augustine was so helpful in church

history, not by providing a new doctrine

or discipline, but by clarifying the

doctrine and discipline that had

previously existed in church history.

Just as the council of Nika did not

create the doctrine of Christ's

divinity, but helped create uniform

expressions of it in a church where

there were sloppy or even heretical

views on the matter. Augustine's

formulations on the baptism of infants

helped unify different disciplines that

had emerged, but it was not a

theological genesis for the church on

this question. Now, here's the part of

Gavin's episode that I strongly

disagreed with. It really is only with

Augustine that the picture begins to

change. And not just Augustine

generally, but Augustine and his later

anti-Palagian writings starting around

410 AD. So in the early 5th century and

here Augustine draws upon infant baptism

to help his argument in favor of

original sin and this has a massive

influence because starting with

Augustine you get this emphasis that

baptism is necessary for salvation and

that includes infants. Those infants who

don't make it to the baptismal font and

die according to Augustine are lost.

They are damned. They are not saved.

they do not experience the beatotific

vision.

>> This makes it seem like Augustine was

the primary source for the belief that

infants need to be baptized to save them

from hell as part of his mission to dunk

on Pelagius. But as we've seen, there is

abundant evidence the entire church

already believed infants ought to be

baptized to protect them from the loss

of heaven. This was not simply an

Augustinian response to Pelagianism.

This was a recovery of what had been

previously believed and taught in the

3rd century. And this was universal in

the church because Pelagius himself also

believed this. Augustine says this. Now

in Pelagius's letter, he says that there

are certain subjects about which some

men are trying to vilify him. One of

these is that he refuses to infants the

sacrament of baptism. Pelagius then says

in that regard, for after saying that he

had never heard even an impious heretic

say this, namely what he set forth as

the objection about infants, he goes on

to ask, who indeed is so unacquainted

with gospel lessons, as not only to

attempt to make such an affirmation, but

even to be able to lightly say it or

even let it enter his thought? And then

who is so impious as to wish to exclude

infants from the kingdom of heaven by

forbidding them to be baptized and to be

born again in Christ. So even though

Pelagius disagrees with Augustine on a

lot, Pelagius absolutely agree with

Augustine on the need to baptize infants

so that they could be saved from sin and

damnation. And Pelagius appeals from his

perspective to the practice being

universal for why he holds to that view.

Similarly, the council of Carthage in

419 referred to those infants alone who

are baptized by Donatus and that they

should not be rebaptized because their

initial baptisms were valid even though

they were baptized by heretics. This

shows that even heretics like the

Donatus did not hold anything resembling

a credtobaptist position in spite of

what some Baptist historical

revisionists have claimed in the past.

For more on this, I recommend Christian

apologist Steven Boyce's video on the

topic. and I'm grateful for Steven's

review and collaboration regarding

today's episode. Finally, what I'm

presenting here is not a knockdown

argument for why everyone must hold to

the discipline of infant baptism. I

appreciate Gavin helping people more

honestly grasp with the historical

evidence. And so, I would encourage you

to take notes from this video, go watch

Gavin's video, at least the part on the

history of baptism, and then decide for

yourself which inferences make more

sense to you. Although to be honest,

there are many doctrines and disciplines

that cannot be settled through

historical investigation alone. The same

skeptical arguments used against infant

baptism are also used against the

doctrine of original sin, which many

scholars say St. Augustine also

invented. But I don't think Gavin would

want original sin to be something that

we can't dogmatize. Instead, the

church's living teaching office exists

so that theological disputes which

involve pressing questions in the

Christian life, like, "Should I baptize

my baby to get him to heaven," do not

remain in the realm of academic debate,

but are finally resolved for the good of

the body of Christ. I am grateful the

magisterium can thread the needle, so to

speak, and affirm early witnesses in

church history to the salvation of

unbaptized infants while acknowledging

that this must be reconciled with the

doctrine of original sin through

something like God's omnipotence and

omni benevolence. So I would say the

historical evidence shows that it is

eminently reasonable to ascent to the

church's instruction that baptism be

administered to children soon after

birth because this reflects the practice

of the early church and its gradual

understanding of how the saving power of

baptism ought to be applied to the

universal problem of human sinfulness.

And so I hope this episode was helpful

for you all today. I'm grateful for

Gavin for reviewing the script. And if

you have other ideas for topics you'd

like me to address, leave them in the

comments below. But yeah, thank you guys

so much for watching and I hope you have

a very blessed day.