Introduction
I changed my mind. More appropriately, God transformed my mind through His Word. What do I mean by that?
What I mean is that I am now persuaded that there is a sound, biblical case for infant baptism. For those of you who have been following me for some time, you are likely surprised and cognizant that in Volume II of the book What Christians Should Know (WCSK), I wrote an entire chapter on baptism, where in closing, I made an admittedly snappy case against infant baptism.
Well, WCSK: Volume II was published in 2016. Consequently, a lot can happen in a decade, especially when meditating on the Word is a constant habit. So, in this episode, I will share my thoughts and biblical observations on infant baptism. Specifically, I will explain how I was transformed from believing exclusively in credobaptism to now believing in pedobaptism. (Credo is the Latin word for “I believe.” Credobaptism refers to baptism performed on those adults who first make a public profession of faith in Christ. Pedo is a Greek term that means child).
Accordingly, I will explain what moved me from thinking that it is proper to baptize only faith-professing adults toward thinking it is proper to baptize both them and their children. Honestly, in the past, I could never quite understand why pedobaptists believed what they believe; I felt as if their theology undergirding the administration of the sacrament was enigmatic and alien. Yet, I reached a point in my Bible study where I felt as if a shade opened in my mind and then, all at once, it made sense. Be mindful that my transformed view didn’t come from studying baptism; instead, what developed was my understanding of the doctrine of God, particularly His immutability. What also changed is my understanding of what baptism ultimately means. To me, it is God’s unchanging character that makes Him endlessly reliable and an eternal source of confidence. A sign that points to Him leads me toward eternal hope. That also means a sign that points to my faith ultimately only leads me toward despair. I will explain more about this later.
I’ve been in Church my entire life, so I know that when Christians tend to settle in a doctrinal niche, they usually get comfortable and stay there, unless a crisis happens. I also understand that even when we’re not talking about spiritual matters, changing your mind gets exponentially harder the longer you’ve held on to an idea or conviction. Thus, everyone can be at ease, mindful that in what follows, I am neither trying to change anyone’s mind nor am I pointing a finger at anyone to say, “You’re wrong.” (Although it must be said that in the debate between credobaptists and pedobaptists, one side can be right, but both cannot). At the end of the day, there are godly, Bible-believing, Christ-exalting Christians on both sides of the argument, who both want to please God and do what is biblical. Because I believed in credobaptism for so long, when it comes to who gets baptized, I am the last one to judge another’s theology. What I do hope to do is merely explain why and how my thinking changed, and in the process, perhaps shed some light on the subject for those who never explored it fully. The biblical thing for all of us to do is to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:1–2). The unbiblical thing for any of us to do is not to open our Bibles and not be able to explain what we believe and why we believe them. Let us also not⎯for matters of mere convenience⎯uncritically and passively accept what our denomination or local church does and believe.
Before I begin, allow me to establish a common foundation.
What We Agree On
First, I am not arguing against anyone who believes in credobaptism, also known as believer’s baptism. If you are someone who only believes in credobaptism, the good news for both of us is that you and I are on the same team, and there is no debate among us. The Bible makes clear that if an adult comes to faith in Jesus Christ, said adult ought to profess faith before being baptized. This is validated by the biblical reality that in every instance in the New Testament where an adult is baptized, they make a profession of faith first (see Acts 2:38–41; 8:12, 35–38; 10:44–48; 16:14–15; 16:29–34, 18:8).
The argument I will subsequently make a case for is what is to be done for the children of a believer who makes a profession of faith. Again, in arguing for pedobaptism, I am not arguing against credobaptism. I am merely suggesting that there is biblical support for extending the sacrament to the children of professing, baptized believers.
Second, infant baptism is in no way, shape, or form, synonymous with baptismal regeneration. That is to say, I am not suggesting that baptizing a child causes them to become born again. To suggest such a thing is heresy. No work of man can ever regenerate another, and certainly applying water to the outside of a child’s flesh will not and can never cleanse their soul and make them righteous before God. The only agent that causes a person to be born again is God. Regeneration is an operative act of sovereign grace. Baptism regenerates no one. (See Jeremiah 32:38–40; Ezekiel 36:26; John 1:13, 3:1–36, 6:33, 44; Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:1–10; Titus 3:5).
As a parent speaking to parents and non-parents, on the one hand, let us all remember that we have a tremendous influence on our children, whether good or bad. Truly, godly parents are a blessing to their children because they engage the means of grace for their good. This undoubtedly affects their offspring, for as it says in Proverbs 22:6:
Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he grows older, he will not abandon it.
On the other hand, let us all not forget that in their own strength and power, the only thing a godly parent can definitively do for his or her child is make them religious. A Christian parent cannot save his or her offspring. What they can certainly do is pass on a sinful nature and a flawed example, but only God can create a new heart within them. Again, doing all the prescribed things⎯like taking them to church, discipling them, and modeling a godly character⎯are all tremendous blessings that the Lord may use as means to create new life. Yet still, salvation belongs to the Lord (Psalm 3:8, 62:1).
Now that I think a common framework has been established, I will move on to specifically explain how my thinking changed.
Where My Thinking Changed
Here is the question that began to change everything for me: What is the ultimate meaning of baptism? Because if baptism ultimately symbolizes your faith or your testimony that you chose God, then of course, it makes no sense to baptize children. It makes no sense to baptize a child who can neither comprehend the gospel nor make an informed profession of faith. But is that what the sacrament is a sign of? Something in you? Or is the sacrament about God? You see, beloved, I used to think⎯and memorialize in words both in print and online⎯that baptism is an outward sign of inward faith. The question I would have for the 2016 version of myself that memorialized those words is this: Where does the Bible say that baptism is an outward sign of inward faith? Because it doesn’t. You won’t find that connection in the New Testament. In fact, the more I searched the Scriptures, the more I was persuaded that baptism is Christ-focused. What the Bible does say is that baptism is primarily about Jesus, the object of our faith, not our faith per se.
Let’s go back to the text. As it is practiced in the modern church, where does the New Testament sacrament of baptism begin? It is with the baptism of Jesus. Let us then read the most robust account in Matthew’s gospel (see also Mark 1:9–11 and Luke 3:21–22).
In Matthew 3:13–17 the text says:
Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan, coming to John to be baptized by him. But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have the need to be baptized by You, and yet You are coming to me?” But Jesus, answering, said to him, “Allow it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him. After He was baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and settling on Him, and behold, a voice from the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
As we just read from Matthew 3, the baptism of Jesus is a reversal of the flood in the Old Testament. You see, way back in Genesis 6:3, God saw that the earth was corrupt, and that every intent of the thought of humankind was on evil continually. God thus withdrew His spirit, and as a result, the waters of judgment submerged the rebellious. However, Noah found favor in God’s eyes. Thus, the Lord told Noah to build an Ark, which would be a vessel of refuge (or salvation) for those who trusted God. Everyone in the Ark was subsequently preserved from the waters of judgment. What then happens in the New Testament? The real Ark⎯Jesus⎯now sits atop the waters of the river Jordan. It is then that, after He rises from the river, that the heavens are opened and the Spirit returns. In other words, a reversal of the flood of judgment happens when the Spirit of God⎯in the form of a dove⎯returns to earth and settles on Christ. It is then that the Father says, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” There, all three Members of the Trinity are in harmony, saying, “Christ is now the vessel of refuge” because Jesus had favor in the eyes of the Father. All three members of the Trinity confirm for us that baptism is a sacrament and a sign that points to Jesus. Yes, baptism is a sign that points to many other things as well, but primarily, it is a visible sign of the spoken promise that in Jesus Christ, there is salvation.
So, do I still believe that baptism is an outward sign of inward faith? Not exactly, at least not primarily. Baptism is a sign of the new covenant. It points to our regeneration, our sanctification, and our union with Christ and our baptism with the Holy Spirit (see Matthew 3:16; John 1:33; I Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:26–27; Ephesians 4:4–6, 5:26; Colossians 2:12–13; Titus 3:5). It is a sign that points to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in whom we have reconciliation with God. Baptism is a sign that goes along with a promise that all those who believe in Christ will be saved (Acts 2:38–39). The sign is precious because it points to God’s faithfulness that guarantees the fulfillment of the promise in spite of the weakness of my faith or the brokenness of my character (I Peter 3:21–22; Romans 6:3–4). Even more, Christ’s blood is symbolized by the cleansing water. Consequently, baptism demonstrates to us that purification can only come from the outside and is done to us by someone else with a cleansing agent (water) that we did not create. As one rises from the water, that symbolizes being raised to newness of life in union with Christ. As you can see, baptism is a sign that points to many things by the proper object of the sacrament is Jesus.
When we take a step back from baptism and ask ourselves big-picture questions like, “What is the point of everything?” or “What is the point of the Church?”, what is evident very quickly is that everything is directed toward Christ (Colossians 1:15–20). Subsequently, consider this: Is the Church the place where God is at work or the place where you just find the people who have responded to His work? Is baptism a sign of God’s pledge or your pledge? Are the sacraments God’s means of grace or your pledge of commitment?
How you answer those questions will invariably inform whom you believe is suitable to receive baptism. Because, as I am now firmly persuaded, I believe that a person’s position on infant baptism has little to do with children and the most to do with what a person believes the sacrament means. As such, I will move on to the specific case for infant baptism.
The Biblical Case for Pedobaptism
The first thing I will do is refer you to a classic defense for infant baptism made by the late Dr. R. C. Sproul. It is roughly a 45-minute lecture available for free on YouTube. It was given in the context of a debate with the late John MacArthur.
Next, does the Bible provide any specific instructions on infant baptism? Well, when we search the pages of the New Testament, we do not find any explicit commands to baptize infants. However, there are no explicit commands that forbid us from baptizing infants. Thus, to develop a biblical answer to the topic at hand, we have to do some work and make inferences from elsewhere in Scripture. We will make inferences because to merely stop here and say, “The New Testament doesn’t mention pedobaptism” would be true, but it would also be simplistic. After all, there are countless things the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention⎯like the Trinity⎯but no orthodox Christian in their right mind would suggest the doctrine of the Trinity is unbiblical. If there is no explicit mention, we now have to ask: Are there principles or components we can use to synthesize a biblical response? There are.
In making inferences, we will begin with the general and then move to the particular. Consequently, at the end of His public ministry, Jesus tells His disciples in the Great Commission:
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Mathew 28:18–20)
In Christ’s instruction, did He apply an age limit to whom should be baptized? He didn’t. Christ’s words are thus revealing here because from God’s perspective, His primary concern isn’t the age of the one who gets baptized; rather, He emphasizes the way it is done and the relationship toward those who are baptized. Hence, Christ commands His followers to one, go and make disciples, being inclusive of the entire world; two, He tells them to perform the sacrament in the Trinitarian name; and three, to teach His commandments. Discipling and teaching both imply a continual relationship.
Let us now move to the particular. Does the Bible connect baptism to any other sign in the entire canon of Scripture? It does: to circumcision. The apostle Paul⎯in the New Testament⎯links the sign of the new covenant (baptism) to the sign of the old covenant (circumcision). Here is what it says in Colossians 2:8–15:
See to it that there is no one who takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception in accordance with human tradition, in accordance with the elementary principles of the world, rather than in accordance with Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over every ruler and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision performed without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your wrongdoings and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our wrongdoings, having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.
Now, am I suggesting that circumcision and baptism are the same? No. Are they continuous? Absolutely not! For goodness’ sake, one was done to the private parts of males only with a sharp object, and the other is done to both males and females in water! In referring to Colossians 2:8–15, I do think the apostle is drawing our attention to the reality that circumcision and baptism are related; not the same or have a tit-for-tat correlation, but in a general sense, they are connected.
Furthermore, the apostle Paul’s primary concern in these verses is not infant baptism; it is the supremacy of Christ, over and above the traditions and philosophies of men. That being said, Paul could have used any Scriptural argument for Christ’s supremacy, but He chose to use an Old Testament ritual and then link it to a New Testament sacrament. Again, Colossians 2:11 says:
In [Christ] you were also circumcised with a circumcision performed without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.
So, what is the circumcision of Christ? Paul tells us in the very next verse. What he means by the circumcision of Christ is baptism. In the next two verses, Paul writes:
By the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your wrongdoings and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our wrongdoings.
You may now ask yourself, “So what?” So what if circumcision and baptism are linked? Well, recall that in a previous paragraph, I said that to develop a biblical answer to the topic of infant baptism, we have to do some work and make inferences from elsewhere in Scripture. We have now discovered that the New Testament connects baptism to circumcision. Now that we have a link between the two rituals, we will go back to the Old Testament to discern if the administration of one covenantal sign gives us insight into the administration of another.
The Covenant of Circumcision
When did Abraham express faith in God? It is in Genesis 15:6. When did God give the covenant of circumcision? It was after Abraham expressed faith, which is in Genesis 17. Hence, the covenant of circumcision⎯as we will explore⎯was a sign of what God promised to do; for Abraham, his acting on that promise demonstrated His trust in God’s faithfulness. Now this is a crucial point that I don’t want anyone to miss. Saying baptism and circumcision are linked doesn’t do the argument for infant baptism any justice until we discern what God communicates to Abraham in the covenant of circumcision. Beloved, in that covenant, God communicated the gospel and Abraham responded to that message with faith. As R.C. Sproul said in his debate with John MacArthur, “circumcision in the Old Testament was a sign of the gospel of Christ.”
Here now is the first part of the covenant of circumcision. Genesis 17:1–8 says:
Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him,
“I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be blameless. I will make My covenant between Me and you, and I will multiply you exceedingly.”
Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying,
“As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you will be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall you be named Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. And I will give to you and to your descendants after you the land where you live as a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”
Does this covenant promise refer to biological descendants and a physical territory for said progeny? Of course it does. But that is not the ultimate fulfillment of the covenant. Abraham already had faith, and to the man who trusts God, the Lord promises final fulfillment for descendants not in biological Jews but in people from every tribe, language, and nation (see Romans 4:16–17, 15:8–2; Revelation 7:9). This is why Galatians 3:29 says:
And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
And Galatians 3:7–9 says:
Therefore, recognize that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying …
Wait a minute, stop right there. When did God preach the gospel in the Old Testament? When did Abraham hear the gospel thousands of years before Christ? The apostle Paul tells us that when Abraham was promised spiritual descendants, that was a gospel promise. The Scriptures continue:
The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
This is what Sproul meant when he said that circumcision in the Old Testament was a sign of the gospel of Christ. That is, in establishing the covenant in Genesis 17, God told Abraham that he would be a father to many, and it wasn’t just a biological promise; it was for all those who would one day be baptized into Christ Jesus. Accordingly, the Hebrew word used here for father⎯as in Abraham being a father to a multitude of nations⎯need not imply a biological connection because later on in Genesis, Joseph was called a father to Pharoah (Genesis 45:8). From Abraham’s perspective, then, Gentile believers would participate in this covenant promise through their spiritual incorporation into Israel (see Ephesians 2:1–13; I Peter 2:10). Of course, this incorporation is mediated through union with Christ, the capital ‘D’ descendant, the great seed of Abraham. As such, Galatians 3:16 says:
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as one would in referring to many, but rather as in referring to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. (see also verses 26–29).
Finally, the covenant God makes with Abraham is an everlasting one (Genesis 17:7) because God does not change, and Christ will eventually satisfy every condition of the covenant (II Corinthians 1:20; Ephesians 2:12–13).
To summarize, in the covenant of circumcision, God makes a promise to Abraham that ultimately points to Christ and all those who believe in Him. This means if you are a Christian living in the twenty-first century, then you are a participant in the Abrahamic covenant because you are an heir to the promise. This is critical to understand in the context of our current discussion because the Abrahamic covenant did not apply only to Jews in a faraway land thousands of years ago. It applies to you right here, right now.
Furthermore, because circumcision involved the organ of procreation, it drew attention to the concept of “seed” or “offspring,” which points us back to the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15. Fleshly circumcision was never the point because elsewhere in the Bible, God makes it clear that cutting of flesh does not please Him (Jeremiah 9:25–26); what He truly desires is circumcision of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4, 6:10; Ezekiel 44:7–9), ultimately found in the “circumcision of Christ” done without hands mentioned in Colossians 2:8–15.
What happens next? God instructs Abraham on the remainder of the covenant, specifically the sign of circumcision. Genesis 17:9–14 says:
God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, including a slave who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. A slave who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall certainly be circumcised; so My covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant. But as for an uncircumcised male, one who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
What does Abraham do in response? He circumcised every male in his household (Genesis 17:23–26). The text says that even those males who were foreigners were also circumcised (Genesis 17:27). Recall that Isaac, the child of promise yet to be born, would be circumcised as an eight-day-old before he professed faith (Genesis 21:4).
Now, what was the point of going through the covenant of circumcision? To validate the assertion that circumcision in the Old Testament was a sign of the gospel of Christ. Accordingly, baptism in the New Testament is a sign of the gospel of Christ. Hence, although both rituals are distinct, they are signs that point toward the same object. As we see in the Old Testament, the sign of God’s covenant of redemption in circumcision was not only permitted to be given to the children of believers, but it was explicitly commanded. I will again quote Sproul from his debate:
We have to say that we have explicit biblical teaching that God Almighty⎯at least at one time in history⎯has explicitly commanded that a sign of faith be administered to a person who does not yet possess that which the sign signifies.
Now, even if a person were to disagree with Sproul’s deduction that circumcision was a sign of faith, what you must admit is that⎯whatever you regard circumcision as meaning⎯it was a sign of a covenant. Even the Lord says in Genesis 17:11 that circumcision will be the sign of the covenant between He and Abraham. Similarly⎯whatever you regard baptism as meaning⎯it is a sign of a covenant. Additionally, if you do regard circumcision as a sign of faith, then notice how there is no standard chronology for faith and circumcision in the Old Testament. That is to say, Abraham was circumcised after he had faith, while Isaac was circumcised before. Faith was necessary to appropriate the benefits of the covenantal promises, but the administration of the sign was not tied to the timing of faith.
As so, in Genesis 17, God commands the sign of the covenant to be explicitly given to the children of believers. This is a crucial point because when looking for a biblical precedent for administering a covenantal sign when the recipient is lacking what the sign points to, we find it here in Genesis 17.
Accordingly, in the words of John Calvin, the only difference between circumcision and baptism is in the externals only. Calvin writes in Institutes of the Christian Religion (4.16.4):
“There is now no difficulty in seeing wherein the two signs agree, and wherein they differ. The promise, in which we have shown that the power of the signs consists, is one in both—viz. the promise of the paternal favour of God, of forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. And the thing figured is one and the same—viz. regeneration. The foundation on which the completion of these things depends is one in both. Wherefore, there is no difference in the internal meaning, from which the whole power and peculiar nature of the sacrament is to be estimated. The only difference which remains is in the external ceremony, which is the least part of it, the chief part consisting in the promise and the thing signified. Hence, we may conclude that everything applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism, excepting always the difference in the visible ceremony. To this analogy and comparison we are led by that rule of the apostle, in which he enjoins us to bring every interpretation of Scripture to the analogy of faith (Romans 12:3, 6). And certainly in this matter, the truth may almost be felt. For just as circumcision, which was a kind of badge to the Jews, assuring them that they were adopted as the people and family of God, was their first entrance into the Church, while they, in their turn, professed their allegiance to God, so now we are initiated by baptism, so as to be enrolled among his people, and at the same time swear unto his name. Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.”
Hence, because circumcision and baptism are linked, both are signs of the gospel and both are ultimately directed toward Christ; then baptism, like circumcision, need not be tied to the moment of profession of faith. As it says in the Westminster Confession of Faith (28.6):
“The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.”
Furthermore, circumcision is a sign inherent to the Abrahamic covenant, not the Mosaic. Consequently, as mentioned before, modern Christians are participants in the ancient Abrahamic covenant, the same one that Abraham was; we⎯as was Abraham⎯are justified by faith, so just as Abraham gave a sign of the covenant to His children, so do we. The difference, of course, is that circumcision was pointing forward to a coming Messiah. Baptism points back to Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.
This all now ties back to what I said earlier: that because my understanding of the meaning of baptism changed, in my mind, that understanding also informed who could receive it. The sacrament of baptism⎯as a sign that points primarily to the faithfulness of God in what He has promised through His Son⎯remains constant in its meaning; that is, the sign always points toward Christ. And thus, for the adult, what is conveyed in baptism is a sign of God’s promise to give that person the benefits of the person and work of Christ because they have appropriated that promise by faith. For the child, what is conveyed through infant baptism is a sign of God’s promise to give him or her the benefits of the person and work of Christ when or if he or she comes to faith. The signs convey the promise of God to all who believe, not the faith of the individual. Baptism for everyone is also a sign of entrance into the visible church, the community of the new covenant.
You may then ask yourself, “Well, if baptism is primarily about God’s promise to us, then why not baptize all children?” The reason not to do that is that it wouldn’t be biblical. Using the Old Testament precedent, God did not command all infant males to be circumcised but only biological descendants of Abraham and those in his household. Consequently, infant baptism only applies to children of a believing adult. This is so because a believing parent has a sanctifying influence on the children in their household, and there is an assumption that a believing parent will⎯in some way, shape, or form⎯disciple their children. To validate this principle, let us again consider what Paul writes. In I Corinthians 7:12–14 it says:
But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if any woman has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not divorce her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. (italics mine)
When the apostle Paul uses the word sanctify, it means “set apart.” So how can someone who is not a Christian be sanctified by their spouse? By means of an unbelieving wife staying together with a believing husband (and vice versa), the unbelieving spouse is now placed in an environment that differs from that which is ordinary or normal. That unbelieving spouse is now in an environment where God’s grace is being poured out onto their most intimate companion, and that can certainly spill over.
Additionally, when the apostle Paul writes that children are holy, he doesn’t mean they enter a state of sinless perfection. Holy refers to being separated or consecrated to the service of God. What the apostle explains to us here is that when at least one believing parent is in the house, their spouse comes under the influence of God’s work (see I Corinthians 7:16) and so do their children, even if they are not old enough to profess faith. In fact, Paul says at the end of I Corinthians 7:14, “for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.” The apostle uses a word that would have been familiar to any Jew. Uncleanliness or being unclean⎯like being a leper⎯meant you were now outside of the covenant community, numbered with the unbelievers. To be unclean meant you were a stranger to the covenant promises of God, away from the place where God’s grace was, outside the camp. So, Paul says, “for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.” Why were they unclean but now are set apart to God? Because of a believing parent. Here, the apostle purposefully uses covenantal language, which points us back to the reality that in the Old Testament, the whole family was regarded as being in covenant with God. Accordingly, because the children of a believer are set apart, Reformed theology would argue it is right to apply a visible sign and seal of their separation: baptism. Of course, that separation is from the world and to God and the covenant community (see Acts 16:15).
Let us not gloss over the fact that once again in the New Testament, the apostle Paul uses language that refers us back to the Old Testament covenant to establish a principle by which a new covenant family is to conduct itself.
At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descends, and many are filled and begin to speak in tongues. Peter then preaches his famous sermon. I will now read Acts 2:37–39, 41. Pay attention to how the apostle Peter views the promise of God toward the children of those who just came to faith:
Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what are we to do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself … So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.”
You see, now in the new covenant era, the Holy Spirit is poured out onto those who believe. Because the new covenant is better, it offers a promise of salvation to “whosoever will”: that is, anyone who believes will be saved. Hence, as the apostle Peter explains, because Pentecost is the dawn of the new covenant church era, the promise moves outward in three concentric, increasingly broad circles: first to you, the adult hearers of the Word, then to their children, and then for all those who are far away. Here, the apostle tells us that the new covenant promises are indeed gifts for the children of believers. Their reception of the sign of baptism thus goes with the promise of salvation through Christ alone.
Taking a step back, we see that throughout the canon of Scripture, God tends to work through families. This makes logical sense seeing as how we have the greatest influence on those who are closest to us. furthermore, as stated at the beginning, parents have a tremendous influence on their children. Does it not make perfect sense then, for a believing parent to have their local church administer baptism⎯a sign of the covenant and a means of grace⎯to their own children, whom they will have the most influence over? As the saying goes, it doesn’t make sense to travel to the other side of the world to evangelize if you haven’t already done it at your dining room table. In line with Christ’s command in the Great Commission, aren’t our children the most accessible to disciple? Aren’t our children those whom we can teach the most all that Christ commanded?
The new covenant is better than the old; there is no debate on that fact. The new is also more inclusive: it includes Jews and Gentiles, men and women, and people from every tribe and tongue, all across the planet. So then, a question all credobaptists must answer is this: because the new covenant is better and is more inclusive, then why would it exclude a believer’s children from receiving the sign of the covenant (baptism)? Because, in the inferior old covenant, a believer’s children were included and received the sign (circumcision).
This also raises a very interesting point. For roughly two thousand years, God’s covenantal people were physically marked by circumcision. It was part of their ethnic identity. It was something so serious and integral to who they were that when Moses failed to circumcise his own children, God almost killed him. Moses’s wife intervened and saved her husband (Exodus 4:24–26). All of the apostles were Jews, and the gospel began to spread in Jerusalem, the Jewish capital of the world. This then begs the question: since Jews had become accustomed to giving the covenantal sign to their children, if baptism was originally taught to be for adults only, why was there no New Testament controversy? Why are there no disputes mentioned in any of Paul’s letters over not baptizing children? If a principle that had been in place for millennia was suddenly repealed and abrogated, why is there not a single word to address the matter? Many will immediately respond, “That’s an argument from silence.” But as R.C. Sproul said, “That’s a screaming silence.” What I would argue is that the silence is the argument. What makes logical sense of this situation is that any Jewish convert or early Christian believer would simply assume that the same practice and principle of including the children of believers in the reception of the covenantal sign simply continued because God never gave a command otherwise. Hence, there was not a controversy recorded because those in the early Church merely sustained the principle that was in practice for thousands of years. No change is nothing to report on.
Using this perspective, then, I think that credobaptists have a problem. I think their burden is to explain why a practice that was normal and normative for millennia suddenly stopped. Why was there such a radical change? Why was there no controversy? Why, then, did Paul not address this drift in his letters but instead linked baptism with circumcision? If there was no explicit command from God to stop giving the covenantal sign to your children, then where did that idea come from? Because, if I was a first-century believer who wanted to be faithful to God and didn’t yet have a full New Testament, what could I do if I was unsure? Look back at what God had already commanded. If I have explained myself clearly, then I think it is evident that in asking these questions, there is no argument from silence. Instead, I am saying, “There is silence, but why is there no argument?”
Before I move on to objections to pedobaptism, I will address the issue of all the “household” baptisms in the New Testament (see Acts 10:48, 16:15, 16:33, 18:8; I Corinthians 1:16). Personally, I was never persuaded that a household baptism was a credible argument for infant baptism. That is, even if the Greek word for household (οἶκος) suggests infants, the fact remains that there is no record of infants being baptized in said households. Who is to say a household included everyone above the age of 16? Who is to say a household included people under the age of two? We simply do not know. The one observation I will make is that what household baptisms demonstrate to us is that those other than the adult professing faith are baptized.
Now I will move on to common objections to pedobaptism.
Objections
One: Infant baptism is not mentioned in the New Testament. I began to address this objection in what was mentioned earlier. Again, to assert, “The New Testament doesn’t mention pedobaptism” would be true, but it would also be too simplistic. After all, as mentioned, there are countless other things the Bible does not explicitly mention, like the Trinity. Furthermore, if one were to use this defense, then⎯in order to remain logically consistent⎯they would also have to admit that biblical silence is synonymous with divine condemnation. Beloved, we have to realize (for example) that the Bible never mentions women partaking in the Lord’s Supper, cesarean sections, or the Internet. Hence, for those who object non-mentioning, are you fully prepared to take that objection to all of its logical conclusions?
If we go back to Scripture, it affirms that it is sufficient (see II Peter 1:3 and II Timothy 3:16–17) for all of life. Hence, if the Bible does not give us a clear answer, then we must search the Scriptures, using the clear to interpret the unclear. Furthermore, the principle of the analogy of faith (Romans 12:6) states that every proposed interpretation of Scripture must be compared with what other parts of the Bible teach. Thus, to arrive at a sophisticated, well-informed biblical response, we never stop at “the Bible never explicitly says” but push beyond and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Silence is never the ultimate basis of theology.
Two: Infant baptism is a carry-over from Roman Catholicism. Some may argue from history or tradition and say that because Roman Catholicism endorses infant baptism, then the advocation for the modern practice is a mere carry-over from Rome. While it is certainly true that Rome does practice infant baptism, it also advocates baptismal regeneration. That, as explained, is a heretical, unbiblical idea.
The reality is, when you look at the writings of the early Church fathers in the second and third centuries⎯for example those of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus’s Apostolic Tradition, Origen, and the Council of Carthage⎯they suggest that infant baptism was not only being practiced at an early date but were also common. Notably absent in the history of the early Church are controversies over infant baptism; said absence suggests the Church was comfortable carrying on an apostolic tradition. Certainly, after Augustine (the fifth century onward), there is no real debate that the universal practice of the Church was baptizing the infants of believing parents. What subsequently happened in the Roman Catholic church is that a common practice was continued but attached to it was the false idea that children were saved by baptism.
Be mindful that I would never support an argument for infant baptism based either on history or tradition. That would be a dangerous path because it rejects the principle of Scripture alone. I only mention history and tradition here to refute the point that, historically speaking, infant baptism began with Roman Catholicism.
Three. Another objection to pedobaptism appeals in some way, shape, or form to the supremacy of the new covenant. This objection has many flavors but sounds something like this, “The new covenant is better and is separate and distinct from the old. Therefore, you can’t go back and grab principles from the old covenant and apply them now. You can’t go back and forth.”
I will respond to this objection in three ways.
First, as explained earlier, the new covenant does not cancel and make void everything that came before it. The perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant is a fitting example.
Second, I always understood that in the Lord’s method of progressive revelation, serial covenants tended to be built atop the foundation of former ones. Serial covenants don’t destroy the old and then start building in a new locale; rather, they build upward and improve, supported by the same foundation. After all, God never commands His people to forget or not pay attention to everything that happened before Jesus. Rather, all Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable to us (II Timothy 3:16–17). Paul tells in Romans 15:4 that, “Whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” Christ even said that He did not come to abolish the cornerstones of the Old Covenant⎯the Law and the Prophets⎯but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). Our Lord was born under the Mosaic Law and fulfilled all its demands so that He could offer us grace. Hence, it’s impossible to explain why Jesus had to be born, live, and die without understanding the demands of the old covenant.
Third, what does God promise to do in the new covenant? Well, He tells us in Jeremiah 31:31–34. That text says:
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.”
In verse 33, the Lord says that in the new covenant, He will put His law or torah into the hearts of His people. What do you think a Jew living in the time of Jeremiah would understand God’s law to be? Proper Bible exegesis means our modern interpretation cannot mean something different than what it meant to the original audience. So, when the prophet mentions law to an ancient Jew, would that refer to something said that person would already be familiar with or something else, alien to the Mosaic Law? I think the answer is readily obvious. The central obstacle with the Mosaic Law was that all the “Thou shalts” and “Thou shalt nots” were rules on the outside that didn’t change the person on the inside. God’s promise in the new covenant isn’t to abandon everything He did before but to take His already good law and write it onto the heart of a born-again person who earnestly wants to serve God. Why would they want to do that? Because in Christ, they are a new creature with a new heart and mind (II Corinthians 5:17). The point in going through all that is to reveal the connectedness and relatedness of the covenants. This is yet another reason why an old covenant ritual (circumcision) can so powerfully inform out understanding of new covenant sacrament (baptism). Yes, the new covenant is better, but it is not disconnected from the old. Yes, the new covenant is better, but to understand the hope of the new, you first have to understand the despair of the Mosaic covenant.
This leads to the next objection, which is an outgrowth of what we just discussed.
Four. This objection is still related to the new covenant. It sounds something like this: “The new covenant church is composed exclusively of believers. It would be improper, then, to include children⎯whose salvation is undetermined⎯into the church. Infant baptism, then, is inconsistent with the nature of the church.”
I can sincerely understand this argument because what animates it is a concern for the purity of the Church and faithfulness to the Word of God. Now, truly, if we go back to God’s promise of a new covenant in Jeremiah 31, what is the definitive mark of a person in that covenant? God says members of the new covenant are marked by God putting His law within them, writing it on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). Meaning what? That the ultimate mark of a member of the new covenant is an invisible, spiritual mark, not a physical, outward one. Beloved, the only agent who is described as being active to create members of the new covenant is God, not men. This is why He tells the prophet in Jeremiah 31:33, “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart.” God is the One in total control of His covenantal people, so regardless of what men do, nothing will affect whom God has chosen for Himself. Thus, does baptism change election? Absolutely not. Does baptism change if you are saved or not? Absolutely not. These apply both to credobaptists and pedobaptists.
You see, there is an invisible, spiritual Church that transcends time and earth. In God’s eyes, every member of His elect is a member of the spiritual, invisible church. Therefore, from God’s perspective, His invisible, spiritual church incorporates everyone in the new covenant. So then, by baptizing an infant, while they may now be incorporated into the visible, physical church, does that suggest that they are partakers of the new covenant? By no means. As I mentioned at the very beginning, infant baptism is not synonymous with baptismal regeneration. An infant who is baptized is incorporated into the community of believers, but this does not suggest they are a believer. In essence, then, an infant⎯who is the offspring of either one believer or two⎯would have the same experience as an infant who is born to credobaptists. They would both be part of the local church, both be discipled, and both be instructed in the gospel. And, in the same way, we wouldn’t exclude from the church community the children of credobaptists, we neither do the same to the children of pedobaptists.
After all, the focus of the church in the New Testament is to edify believers, not weed out unbelievers. If the focus is on those who may not be true Christians, the church runs the danger of setting the bar so high that it hurts real Christians. To take this to an extreme, the New Testament accepts apostasy and false converts not as a reality to avoid but an inescapable reality for which there is a means of weeding out the potentially false converts: church discipline (see Matthew 18:15–20; Galatians 6:1).
Conclusion
Beloved, if baptism is a sign of your commitment to God, then love God and do as you please. If it is a sign of God’s promise that through Christ, He is willing to accept you and your child, then it is a precious reminder to you and your children of God’s grace and mercy.
On a personal note, when I was younger and had a full head of thick, black hair, I was proud to celebrate my faith and the strength of my confidence in God. Yet, as I have gotten older, sufferings, trials, and tribulations have taught me that it was never the strength of my grip on God, but His grip on me. What I mean to say, then, is now I no longer have any hair atop my head, and my beard has saturated with grey. Over time, I have less and less faith in my faith, while my recognized need and dependency on the Lord has grown exponentially. Hence, a sign that points to God’s faithfulness is meaningful; a sign that points to my faithfulness will only lead me to hopelessness. I can trust in God’s faithfulness and His promises to His people.
As Stephen Charnock writes in The Existence and Attributes of God:
“Peter vowed allegiance, and almost with the same breadth swore against [Christ]. The flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. In a good man, how often there is spiritual lethargy! Though he does not openly defame God, yet he does not always glorify him. He does not forsake the truth, but he does not seek to rest in it. How hard it is to make our thoughts and affections keep their stand! Place them on a good object, and they will be flying from it like a bird from branch to branch. This ought to trouble us! Though we may stand fast in the truth, and spin our resolutions into a firm web, and though the Spirit may triumph over the flesh in our practice, we ought to bewail the inconstancy of our nature. The stability we do have is from grace. How contrary we are to the unchangeable God, who is always the same! And he would have us the same in our religious promises and resolutions for good!”
In the end, at least for me, it all comes down to whether you view baptism as a sign of what God has promised to do for you or as a sign of how you have responded to God. As the first line of the hymn, “Solid Rock” says:
“My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’s blood and righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus’s name.
On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand; all other ground is sinking sand.”
My hope is that you have found this helpful, whatever your conclusion may be. May God continue to guide all of us toward being more like His Son and less like ourselves.
Dr. C. H. E. Sadaphal