Introduction The debate over the validity (or otherwise) of infant baptism, present in Christendom since the radical reformation, has received fresh impetus this century through the influential agency of Karl Barth  whose strong polemic against the practice from within the Reformed tradition occasioned official proclamations on behalf of several denominations  and precipitated a flurry of scholarly literature.  In response to the widespread critiques of infant baptism, at a theological, exegetical, and pastoral level, fuelled as it is by the adoption of a Baptist understanding of the rite among the fast growing Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, proponents of infant baptism have been increasingly forced to defend the validity of the practice by re-examining the evidence of Scripture, re-evaluating the nature and authority of tradition, and, most importantly, constructing a theological premise for infant baptism that is congruent and consistent with both Scripture and tradition and capable of functioning at a pastoral level, where the admission or refusal of infant baptism, together with the conditions and prerequisites (if any), have significant consequences for those groups continuing to accept the practice.            Part One The evidence of the Scriptures All evidences and arguments for or against the practice of infant baptism from within the corpus of Scripture are, necessarily, arguments from silence. There is "no specific command either to baptize or not to baptize infants" in the New Testament,  and of the eleven instances of Christian baptism recorded outside the Gospels,  none contains any explicit mention of the baptism of an infant or young child. Consequently, as Paul Jewett points out, "that there is no instance of infant baptism recorded in the New Testament is accepted by all".  This, however, is as far as the evidence and the scholarly consensus extends. a) sociological arguments For proponents of infant baptism the silence of the New Testament, together with the indisputable norm throughout of adult subjects baptized after experiencing conversion and professing faith, is neither surprising nor problematic given that the New Testament is, almost exclusively, a missionary document addressed to a missionary church.  As Oscar Cullmann points out, there are only two ways in which children might enter such a church; (1) through the conversion of the household to which they belong, and (2) by virtue of their birth to previously converted Christian parents. Instances of Cullmann’s first possibility occur in the New Testament passages whereby, on the basis of the familial head’s conversion and submission to baptism,  the entire household (oijkiva) are, as a consequence, then baptized collectively (Acts 16:15, 33 & 1 Cor 1:16),  a situation consistent with the Petrine exhortation, programmatic for Acts, that the promise of salvation, encompassing in some sense repentance and baptism, is "for you and your children" (Acts 2:38-39).  In the Graeco-Roman world, oijkiva functioned as a technical term that described a sociological unit within the parameters of which were included husband and wife, their children, frequently the extended family, and any domestic servants and slaves.  Hence it is legitimately proposed by paedobaptist’s, drawing attention also to the continuity with the Old Testament concept of familial solidarity (e.g. Gen 45:18; 1 Sam 22:16)  together with the Jewish antecedent of proselyte baptism,  that the household baptisms included infants and / or small children.     Although overstating the case rather severely, Pierre Marcel believes the legitimacy of infant baptism to "depend entirely on the manner in which Scripture regards the children of believers".  The customary scriptural point of reference is 1 Cor 7:14 where, in a passage dealing with mixed marriages, Paul declares the children (tevkna) of such a union to be ‘holy’ (aJgiov") and not ‘unclean’ (ajkavqartav). Both are technical terms relating to ritual purification in Judaism and it is quite conceivable that Paul deals with the whole question (v.12, "I say - I and not the Lord") by drawing on the Rabbinic practice whereby the offspring of fully initiated proselytes were considered to be "born in holiness" (Yebamot 78a).  Although David Wright sees this as "one of the "clearer warrants for infant baptism,"  the passage "bears no reference to baptism"  but simply affirms the sanctified state of children born to a believing parent, with the same sanctity extended also to the unbelieving adult partner. It is, therefore, at best uncertain that the sanctity here conferred presupposes baptism.       b) Jesus and the little children The Gospel pericope  in which Jesus receives and blesses children, among them infants,  is cited by Tertullian as the common Scriptural justification for infant baptism in his day (c. 200 CE),  and has been used as such ever since.  Oscar Cullmann, at a form critical level, attempted to identify within the pericope an implicit baptismal liturgy inserted into Mark or Q to legitimize an early church practice which had become normative when the parousia did not occur as anticipated by the apostles and an increasing number of children were being born to Christian parents.  Cullmann constructed his thesis almost exclusively on the (tenuous) basis of the occurrence of the same verb (kwluvw) in the three synoptic parallels and in four other New Testament passages describing baptism (Mt 3:13; Acts 8:36; 10:47; 11:17).  There is however, no evidence that kwluvw was ever used with such technical force in the early church or the New Testament, and the pericope itself claims no association with baptism nor does it say anything about admission into the church.      c) the analogy to circumcision       A further argument for infant baptism from Scripture attempts to locate the practice within the framework of a biblical theology that proceeds on the basis of an implicit continuity between the two testaments, drawing attention to the analogy between the initiatory symbol of the old covenant (circumcision) and that of the new covenant (baptism).  Proponents of this view emphasize the theological standing of Christians as "the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16) and their collective inheritance of the Abrahamic promise (Gal 3:29; Heb 8:10ff), pointing to the "fundamental kinship between circumcision and Christian baptism"  indicated by Paul’s juxtaposition of the two in Col. 2:11ff and in the Red Sea (1 Cor 10:1ff) and flood (1 Pet 3:20ff) typology’s, both of which receive their antitype in baptism.  Hence, it is claimed, that as the old covenant sign was administered to infants (Gen 17:10-14, albeit males exclusively), so infants born within the ambit of the new covenant are to receive baptism "by appointment of God".  Although the argument is congruent, the theological premise on which it is constructed is at best tenuous in that the circumcision / baptism parallel is better understood as analogy rather than identity.    Part Two History and Tradition The silence of the New Testament and inconclusive nature of the Scriptural evidences and arguments proposed means that any defense of infant baptism cannot stand on exegetical grounds alone and, inevitably, raises questions also about the nature and authority of tradition.  Axiomatic to proponents of infant baptism, who claim apostolic authority, is the  antiquity and continuity of the practice in the early church, a claim frustrated by the fact that all extant "information about the existence of infant baptism comes from the period between AD 200 and AD 250".  The earliest, explicit, reference to infant baptism  is provided by Tertullian (ca. 200 CE); "According to circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each  individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the  case of little children". Tertullian, here advancing arguments in favor of the widespread practice of deferring baptism often until close to death, nevertheless directs his objections against, not something new and revolutionary, but "a practice already prominent in the Carthoginian church"  which may well have extended back into apostolic times. Infant baptism does, however, seem to be the exception rather than rule throughout the first three centuries of Christianity.  The most significant historical factor (at least in the West) is the development of Augustine’s doctrine of original sin,  whereby every newborn baby shares in the Adamic ‘concupiscence’ (the sinful nature) together with the guilt or stain of this, with baptism extinguishing the latter and imparting the grace necessary to counteract  the insidious power of the former, and so effect salvation.  Since Augustine (d.430) infant baptism is the universal practice within Christendom until the Reformation  and may, subsequently, be rightly described as the traditional heritage of the church catholic.  In post Reformation Christendom, a variety of rival traditions emerge, most importantly in the Anabaptist insistence on confession of faith and full immersion as the apostolic, and thereby only valid, baptismal practice. Part Three A theological premise for infant baptism Problematic to evangelical (in particular) proponents of infant baptism is the inconclusive nature of the Scriptural evidence and the inadequacy of tradition to function as an authority in its own right. This conundrum leads directly to the conclusion of G.E. Ladd that "the question of the baptism of infants cannot be settled on the basis of exegetical data... but only on theological grounds".  a) the role of faith The dogmatic stance normally associated with ‘believers baptism’ is, succinctly, the insistence "that baptism should be restricted to those who have confessed faith in Christ’s atoning work".  This is usually accompanied by a non-sacramental view of the rite that denies the necessity of baptism for salvation and tends to divorce the two theologically.  Although supporters of ‘believers baptism’ claim a conscious declaration of faith as the normative New Testament prerequisite for baptism, this is not without problems at an exegetical level,  and is fundamentally flawed at a theological one, in that it makes human’s (not God) the subjects in the salvific process and means that baptism is something performed on the basis of a human ‘work’ (the profession of faith) rather than on the basis of a human response to what God has already achieved in the Christ event.  Theologically, this diminishes the divine role and priority in salvation (election ) and confuses the nature of faith, which is better thought of as a continuous journey occasioned by proclamation and instruction (Rom 10:17), rather than something that ‘happens’ to us at a defined point in time. Because both salvation and it’s sign, baptism, are a divine action of God and cannot be said to arise out of any human work or action, the theological issue at stake is whether baptism ought to be administered on the basis of a what God has done (grace) alone or, on the basis of this and the appropriate human response (declaration of faith).    b) the role of grace The premise upon which the Christian Gospel is constructed is that, theologically, God’s initiative precedes our faith. As a consequence, the order must be baptism - faith, not faith - baptism,  and the rite administered purely on the basis of God’s gracious saving activity, already achieved in the work and ministry Christ. In the divine economy, humans are the passive objects and recipients of this grace, in that "we do nothing in baptism; God does everything".  Hence, infant baptism "is a remarkably vivid depiction of the free and omnipotent grace of God which is independent of all human thought and will, faith and unbelief".  This grace is, in some sense, transmitted through the action of the priest / minister and imparted to the baptizand in the pouring or immersing of water.  This is not, however, an ending but a beginning, for there is always something proleptic and eschatological about any baptism,  and  particularly infant baptism, because infants are "baptized toward faith rather than into faith."  Although adults may be further advanced on the path to understanding than children (but still on a journey), "it is in subsequent faith going right through life that, above all, the sacrament becomes efficacious and a channel of the grace of God".  This does not mean that proponents of infant baptism discount the importance of public declaration of the faith into which infants are baptized.  On the contrary, all provide for it in the form of a subsequent ordinance (sacrament), confirmation, which together with baptism forms a single rite of Christian initiation,  uniting and encompassing both the divine initiative and the human response; the internal action of God and the external manifestation of it; the invisibility of grace and the visibility of faith.   c) baptism as initiation Baptism, as a rite of initiation, signifies entry into a new humanity (Gal 3:27-28) and membership within the visible Christian community (1 Cor 12:13) . It is, therefore, a theological mistake to reduce baptism to an individual action that merely confirms or objectifies a previous act of faith in that baptism is a divine act independent of human action, and a public, not individual, event, whereby the baptizand is grafted into the visible body of Christ,  and "inducted into the communion of saints."  If infants, especially those born to Christian parents, are to be considered part of the body of Christ; if they are to be dedicated in thanksgiving to God and promises made and kept to raise and nurture them in a faith context; if their salvation is to be affirmed and not denied; it would seem impossible to deny them what is everywhere administered as the biblical rite of entry into the redeemed community.  To do so leads ultimately to the unfortunate place of arrival where Beasley-Murray finds himself, claiming that the children of Christian parents are not in fact "in the fullest sense of the term" in the church, are not full members of the body of Christ, and not, therefore, ‘in Christ’ in the same way as adults.    Part Four Pastoral implications The precision of the theological premise underlying the practice of infant baptism is often muddied in praxis, raising a number of critical issues at a pastoral and liturgical level,  all of which have tended to intensify with the development of the ecumenical movement this century. The prominent point of contention among proponents of infant baptism is what conditions or perquisites will be applied (if any) in regards to the family presenting their child for baptism.  The consensus, felt especially among evangelical paedobaptist’s, is that infant baptism should only ever be administered where a faith context is clearly present. This usually translates to a reduction of the administration of baptism to children born of Christian parents for whom it can reasonably be expected that the promises made by the sponsors on their behalf will be fulfilled,  the words of welcome addressed to the newly baptized by the congregation will be tangibly realized,   and that a public profession of faith will in fact take place at the appropriate time,  thus avoiding a secularization of the rite that results in "the anomaly of large numbers of baptized unbelievers". Whilst this is, increasingly, the preferred theological and practical ‘modus operandti’ among evangelicals, it breaks down on (1) theological grounds by emphasizing one aspect of baptism (initiation) at the expense of another (grace) and (2) at a pastoral level (often disastrously and irredeemably) when baptism is refused. The grace by which God acts toward us is universal (Jn 3:16), it is not ‘expensive’ or ‘cheap’, but entirely free. Hence, "the real question is not whether baptism should be withheld from infants, but whether it can be legitimately withheld from anyone at all".  The concern for many is that the scandal of this grace, when applied universally and unconditionally (as God has done in the Christ event), will make the minister an ecclesiastical accessory to perjury  and reduce "the awesome sacrament of Holy Baptism to a shallow ritual of folk religion".  In response, David Hawkings poses two pertinent questions; (1) is the minister "some kind of sacramental traffic cop" putting a price or condition or a means of grace? and (2) is "the parents request for infant baptism ever utterly faithless?".  If infant baptism is truly a divine action, it cannot be made contingent upon the faith, character, or church attendance of the sponsors and / or parents, and, therefore, cannot be refused to anyone requesting it.  To do so is to diminish the certainty that God will act toward the child in baptism, to neglect an opportunity for evangelism, and, frequently, to cause irreparable pastoral damage.  This does not mean there is no place for a pastoral process preceding baptism, only that it is not the Minister’s role to judge or apply some sort of spiritual polygraph to parents presenting children for baptism, but to make the meaning of baptism clear. This process might typically take the form of (1) an initial meeting and preparation, (2) perhaps a further pastoral visit, (3) the service itself and explanation of the structure, dynamics, and logistics involved,  (4) after care, in the form of subsequent contact that has integration into the life of the church community as its goal, and, ultimately, (5) confirmation. Conclusion     On the basis of the biblical, historical, and theological grounds articulated above, the baptism of infants may be accepted as a practice that is not contrary to Scripture and which is administered on the basis of both Christian tradition and a strong theological grounding in the very nature of God and the Christian Gospel. In practice, this has important pastoral ramifications, introducing a tension between the indiscriminate application of this grace to all who request it and the imposition of qualifications and regulations upon it. The tension may be resolved by applying a pastoral process whereby the minister, whilst never refusing baptism, accompanies the divine agency by engaging in an instructional and relational process with the family concerned that begins prior to their arrival at the font and continues after it.