The practice of infant baptism, also known as paedobaptism, has been a point of debate and division within Christianity for centuries. Some traditions like Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and Presbyterianism practice infant baptism while others like Baptists and Evangelicals believe baptism should only be for professing believers. So what does the Bible actually have to say about this issue?
There are no explicit examples of infant baptism in the Bible. All of the baptism accounts involve adults or older children able to profess their own faith. However, those who support paedobaptism argue there are implications in Scripture that children of believers are included in God’s covenant promises. The debate centers around how to interpret these covenant passages and their connection to baptism.
Circumcision Compared to Baptism
In the Old Testament, circumcision was the sign of being included in God’s covenant with Israel. It was performed on male infants to demonstrate that they were part of the people of God (Gen 17:9-14). Some Christians see baptism as a parallel New Testament sign that has replaced circumcision. Just as children were circumcised under the Old Covenant, infants born into covenant families are baptized into the church under the New Covenant.
Colossians 2:11-12 draws a connection between circumcision and baptism: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off 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 powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”
Based on this, paedobaptists argue baptism serves a similar purpose as circumcision. It represents entrance into God’s covenant community. Since children were included in the Old Covenant through circumcision, they should receive baptism as members of the New Covenant.
Household Baptisms
There are several accounts in Acts of entire households being baptized together after the head of the home believes in Jesus. Though infants and children are not specifically mentioned, paedobaptists argue they were likely included in these household baptisms:
– Acts 16:15 – Lydia’s household was baptized with her after she believed.
– Acts 16:33 – The Philippian jailer’s whole family was baptized with him.
– Acts 18:8 – Crispus, the synagogue leader, believed and was baptized along with his entire household.
If all members of these households were baptized, including smaller children as was customary with circumcision, then Scripture allows for the practice of infant baptism. Whole families were considered part of God’s covenant in the Old Testament, so why wouldn’t this continue in the New?
Infants Included in the Church
Paedobaptists point to the membership of children in the early church as evidence that infant baptism took place. The New Testament authors address children as being part of church families without needing to profess faith first.
In Ephesians 6:1, Paul instructs children to obey their parents in the Lord. He assumes their inclusion in the church from birth. In his greeting to the church in Colossae, Paul specifically mentions children (Col 3:20). Peter calls on listeners to repent and be baptized for forgiveness and that “the promise is for you and your children” (Acts 2:39).
According to paedobaptists, if children are considered covenant members of the church, why exclude them from receiving baptism and identifying them with Christ’s kingdom? Their innocence warrants inclusion, just like in the Old Covenant.
Objections to Infant Baptism
Those who reject infant baptism don’t believe the paedobaptist arguments prove the practice is definitively taught in Scripture. Here are some of their main objections:
1. No Clear Biblical Examples
Nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly mention an infant being baptized. Without a clear text, it’s inappropriate to base a practice on unclear inferences. Since all recorded baptisms in the New Testament involve adults able to profess faith, those qualify as normative examples to follow.
2. Household Baptism Texts Don’t Prove Infants Were Included
The accounts of household baptisms do not actually specify that infants were present or baptized. While possible, it’s reading too much into the texts to assume infants were baptized just because households were converted. Households included adults, young people, and servants – any of whom could have been baptized after believing.
3. Different Covenant, Different Sign
The New Covenant is different than the Old in that it’s not based on physical descendance but individual faith. So baptism represents personal belief, not familial inclusion. Colossians 2 compares circumcision and baptism but does not equate them. Baptism represents faith in Jesus, not just covenant membership.
4. No Example of Converts Being Baptized as Infants
If infant baptism was an early church practice, why is there no example of adult converts being asked about their infant baptism? There’s no precedent for re-baptizing those baptized as infants when they convert as adults.
5. Profession of Faith Comes First
Every baptism recorded in Scripture occurs after an individual professes faith in Jesus. Belief precedes baptism (Acts 8:12-13). Infant baptism reverses this order and imposes the sign before any faith exists.
In the end, both sides often land in the same place – that baptism represents identification with Christ and inclusion in the church. The debate is over the appropriate timing and reasons for administering the ordinance. But all Christians can agree that what matters most is whether a person comes to genuine, repentant faith during their lifetime.
The issue of infant vs. believer baptism has divided brilliant, gospel-loving Christians for centuries. But may the practice not divide our hearts. As we wrestle over the right interpretation and application of Scripture, may we do so with humility, grace, and Christ-like patience for those we disagree with. Our shared identity in Jesus far outweighs this baptism debate.
