The issue of infant baptism has been debated among Christians for centuries. This is because the Bible does not give any explicit instruction for what the church should do for the case of infants and whether they are baptised or not. Therefore, any drawn conclusions on the issue have been based off texts written for other situations. A few of the key issues surrounding it are firstly, what baptism signifies; secondly, the biblical background of Old Covenant promises and the sign of entrance into God’s covenant community; and thirdly, the examples of household’s being baptised in the New Testament.
There is compelling evidence to show that baptism was performed through the act of immersion in the New Testament. The Greek word baptizó and a similar one like it, baptó means to “sink, dip, immerse” in water. Several passages in scripture use these terms while others clearly validate their meaning. Examples include Luke 3:16 where John explains “I baptize [baptizó] you with water”, and Mark 1:5 and 1:10 speak of John baptising people “in” the Jordan River and then he himself “coming up out of” the water, respectively. Aside from the physicality of it, baptism by immersion is fitting for the spiritual reality of sharing in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, too. It is an animated picture of the candidate for baptism being lowered down into the “grave” (water), being “buried” (once under), and then rising from the water in parallel to Christ’s resurrection. The image is clear, and is most supported with Romans 6:3-4:
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
These verses emphasize how believers are now a “new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17), having been saved already, living a new kind of life with Christ by rid of their old self. Hopefully, most protestants understand that to be born again, it is the individual’s own and conscious response to say yes to the Gospel that enables salvation for them. This is achieved “through faith” (Col. 2:12). The above verses can then be applied to their life confidently and without error. This simply does not apply for infants. It is impossible to discern a saving faith from them, so administering baptism to them even by immersion (as some places may do), does not justify its reference to beginning a new spiritual life with Christ.
Furthermore, even having some Christians argue that the main issue here is not union with Christ in his death and resurrection but rather, the water being symbolic of the washing away and cleansing from sins, does still not rightly apply to infants. Unless a Roman Catholic view is adopted to the infant (in which baptism is necessary for salvation), it cannot be justified. Moreover, the idea that water baptism is salvific does not line up with scriptures such as Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 11:6, emphasizing a salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and not dependent on works. Even reformed churches who practice paeobaptism will agree that the act itself does not cause or assure salvation for the infant, and rightly rejects catholic teaching.
For the paedobaptist, if water baptism cannot represent having already become a “new creature” that is found in the sharing with Christ’s death and resurrection as well as the cleansing from sins, baptism must signify something else: Christ’s work applied to the individual, in respect of what may become a reality in time. Knowledgeably, “God so loved the world” (John 3:16), He sent Christ who “died for all” people (2 cor 5:15), meaning the Gospel applies to everyone. However, there is also recognition of human response amid God’s divine sovereign election (Romans 8:28-30). Considering this definition, a few cases concerning infant baptism are presented below.
Circumcision was administered to every male in Israel once they were eight days old as an outward sign of entrance into God’s covenant community of people (Gen 17:11). It set them apart from the other nations and marked them as holy. They were not to be considered excluded from the blessings God described to Abraham in Genesis 12:2-3. Many will argue that what circumcision symbolized in the Old covenant is an explicit link to performing infant baptism in the New as its replacement. Colossians 2:11-12 tells believers they were “circumcised” by Christ’s atoning sacrifice, in which they were also “buried with Him in baptism”. To deny baptism to children of believing parents is to reject them the sign of belonging to the kingdom of God (Eph. 6:1-4, Matt. 19:14).
Still, the issue of the child’s faith needs to be addressed. According to Romans 4:3, it was Abraham’s faith that counted him as righteous. Only then was the Abrahamic covenant established, and the law of circumcision given to represent this. However, In the Old Testament, the expression of the child’s faith was not necessary for administering circumcision to them. The validity of it as a sign and seal (Rom. 4:11) did not depend on the time it was given. Circumcision was simply an external sign of God’s covenant with Abraham.
Therefore, in parallel to infants being baptised, it is approached in the same way. Waiting for the individual’s faith to come about is not needed. John Calvin proclaims that “children are baptized for future repentance and faith. Though these are not yet formed in them, yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret operation of the Spirit.” Calvin seeks to honor God’s sacrament and hold to the belief that God can bring a child to future faith and regeneration through the hidden working of the Holy Spirit even before they are able to reason. Furthermore, to assume all infants do not have a place at God’s table does not hold up against scripture (see 2 Sam. 12:23 and Luke 1:41). However, to say that all infants who are baptized are of God’s elect does not align with scripture either. Even as God elected Israel to be His chosen people (Duet. 14:2), Romans 9:6 describes “not all Israel” were “descended of Israel”, meaning that while circumcision was applied to all, not all received salvation. Those who share in God’s promises are only those who imitate the faith of Abraham. Regarding children being born of unbelieving parents, it is simply because they are not partakers of God’s promises established in Abraham (Gal 3:9) and therefore his covenant community that they are not baptised.
Against this argument, Wayne Grudem exclaims that the language of “covenant community” in the New Testament is a completely different story to that in the Old Testament. He describes it as “the church, the fellowship of the redeemed.” His definition excludes infants from being a part of the church in terms of its spiritual reality, even if they do attend the physical building. This is because entrance into the church comes by “saving faith, not physical birth.” There is no room for infants to be baptised into a community they do not show evidence of belonging into, therefore.
The idea surrounding household baptisms is that once one member of the house had believed in God, their whole household was baptised along with them. The trouble is, the New Testament scriptures are silent on any explicit mention of whether it was infants, children or adults that were included in this. It is only based upon assumption that they were for possible support of infant baptism. However, there is no reason to believe the meaning of “household” in the Old Testament suddenly changed for the New Testament. The term encompassed all those living in the house (Gen 17:23-27). If taken literally, therefore, household accounts could include infants being baptised, giving good reason to perform it to infants of Christian households today.
Several cases are presented in the book of Acts. For example, the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16:30-31 asks Paul and Silas “What must I do to be saved?” and their reply was “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Assumingly, Paul’s reply did not mean the rest of his household automatically came to faith in Christ, but it is likely they will because of the influence of headship. However, with further reading the argument is not quite as convincing unless one reads the ESV’s translation of what occurred: ...and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God (Acts 16:33b-34)
The ESV translation suggests that it was only him who believed in God as the verb “he” is singular, yet his whole family were baptised. However, more word-for-word translations including the KJV and NASB read otherwise, stating that he believed in God with his whole house. The distinction is not made in these translations, which causes readers to believe it was a household reception of the Gospel of Christ. In addition to this, verse 32 states that Paul and Silas spoke to all his house, meaning it highly possible to assume no infants were present because it was shared with those who could hear and understand the gospel. Their response was then a belief in God that then resulted in baptism. Even if infants were present and “all” was only used as a generic term, as it might be in saying “all Italians love pasta” (except really some may not), the idea of a salvation first and baptism thereafter is the order in which this account follows.
Another example is the household of Stephanus who were baptised by Paul (1 Cor. 1:16). Yet the context of the letter makes clear to its reader that he and his household were the “first converts of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints” (16:15 ESV). Their baptism appears to be inclusive with their faith and is not a convincible case for infant baptism as infants cannot physically serve others, either. It is a similar situation with the other accounts (Crispus in Acts 18:8; Cornelius in 10:28) where faith is still active and present, in addition with the baptism of the household. Christians cannot separate these two things to justify infant baptism. The only exception is with Lydia and her household in Acts 16:14-15, where no sufficient evidence acts as reason to believe, nor reject the idea that saving faith was present.
In conclusion, Christians must be careful not alter or add meaning to the language of baptism in the New Testament. It never speaks of a probable salvation in the case for baptism. In fact, the order in which baptism is written and exampled in in the New Testament is one where saving faith precedes baptism. Collective household baptisms also give reason to suggest a collective faith. If infant baptism is done to honor the possibility that God can bring the child to future repentance and faith, it changes the language of baptism entirely. If it is done to pronounce to the local church that the child will grow up as a Christian, a member of God’s covenant community, does not a dedication suffice to represent this? It seems fitting that baptism should be reserved for those who are old enough to profess their faith in Christ, lest it be in vain if the child grows up rejecting the gospel.
Stuck on your essay?
