Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you 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 for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

-Acts 2:37-39, ESV

Who should be baptized?  This question has sparked intense debate amongst Reformed Christians ever since the early days of the Reformation.  As someone who has attended baptistic churches until I recently joined a pedobaptist church (where infants are baptized).  In order to become a deacon I needed to be able to accept the Westminster Confession of Faith which meant accepting the pedobaptist position.  I entered that study believing that the Presbyterian version of pedobaptism—referred to as covenant baptism—was valid and biblical while believer’s baptism was preferrable.  I came out of that study with a reversed position: believer’s baptism is a valid and biblical position but covenant baptism better aligns with what the whole of Scripture teaches.  My purpose in this post is not to convince Baptists to begin baptizing their infants but to explain simply what covenant baptism is, why it is biblical, and how we can maintain unity in the Body of Christ regarding this topic.

What Covenant Baptism Is and Isn’t

First, it is important to define the actual question we are addressing.  The question is not whether to baptize believers or infants, since Scripture is very clear that we are to baptize believers.  Every example of baptism we see in Scripture is of new converts, so a church must baptize them and require of them a profession of faith in order to be biblical.  The question is not whether to baptize infants or believers but whether or not to baptize the infants of believers.  Scripture gives no clear examples of infants being baptized or being excluded from baptism, so there is room for genuine Christians to differ on this and still practice baptism biblically.  To paraphrase Romans 14, the church that baptizes infants does so in honor of the Lord and the church that refrains does so in honor of the Lord.  Let not the one who baptizes infants look down on the one who refrains, and let not the one who refrains cast judgment on the one who baptizes infants, for God has welcomed both!  So contrary to the perception of some Baptists, pedobaptists do not reject the baptism of converts following a profession of faith. 

Another major difficulty Baptists have with pedobaptists is the assumption that baptism is considered part of salvation or a guarantee of salvation.  They would be correct in this regarding the Catholic and Lutheran pedobaptist views (baptismal regeneration), but not covenant baptism.  It is absolutely vital to differentiate between the two.  Covenant baptism of infants is not part of salvation and is not seen as a guarantee of salvation.  Instead, covenant baptism refers to the view that both believers and their children should receive baptism as the new covenant sign of entrance into the visible people of God.  It largely mirrors circumcision as the sign of entrance into the visible church and is therefore separate from actual regeneration.  Churches that faithfully practice covenant baptism make this distinction very clear in their baptism liturgies.  In these ways, covenant baptism answers two of the biggest Baptist objections to pedobaptism.

Why Covenant Baptism is Biblical

But is covenant baptism biblical?  Baptists often fail to see pedobaptism as biblical because pedobaptists often do a poor job of proving it from Scripture.  They often point to examples of entire households being baptized—of Cornelius (Acts 10:48), Lydia (Acts 16:14), the Philippian jailer (Acts 15:33), Crispus (Acts 18:8), and Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16)—which would include any infants.  But this argument is unsatisfying since the text does not mention infants in any of these households.  Pedobaptists then point to passages about the inclusion of children, such as Jesus calling little children to Himself and saying that the Kingdom belongs to them (Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16) or Peter at Pentecost saying the promise “is for you and your children” (Acts 2:39).  They also point out the similarities between baptism and circumcision, but Baptists often have difficulty seeing a strong enough connection to justify pedobaptism.  All of these individual bricks are therefore easy for the Baptist to topple, giving the appearance that pedobaptists are grasping at straws for anything in the Bible to support their position. This is because pedobaptists have failed to establish the foundation on which all of these bricks rest to form a biblically-sound structure. 

That foundation is covenant theology, which we have examined in recent posts.  We saw that all of the covenants are corporate in nature and included children.  We then saw the nature of shared responsibility and how that relates to the generational nature of the covenants and the role of representation.  Last time we saw how those the Bible calls worthless were members of the covenant people of Israel but were ultimately unregenerate.  From all of this, we see that families—as the central focus of God’s work—have always entered into the covenants, with parents (specifically fathers) representing their children, so they were all considered to be part of the people of God.  Some of them were faithful while others were not.  For the faithful, the covenant sign signified their inclusion in the invisible church, being united with Christ and therefore guaranteed to inherit the blessings of the covenant.  For the unfaithful, the covenant sign signified that they were not part of the invisible church, being separate from Christ and therefore guaranteed to inherit the curses of the covenant.  This was the context into which the New Covenant came, so it should come as no surprise that we see similar language in the New Testament.  From the earliest days of the Church, the covenant was for those who placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ and their children (Acts 2:39).  In both Testaments, we see households joined the people of God.  Throughout the Old Testament we see the visible people of God containing those who are faithful and those who fall away: righteous Seth vs. unrighteous Cain, Shem vs. Canaan, Isaac vs. Ishmael, Jacob vs. Esau, etc.  During the exodus, we see the whole nation entering into the covenant, but many fell away:

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

-1 Corinthians 10:1-5, ESV

Note how Paul says that all of the Israelites were all part of the people of God, but most of them grumbled and rebelled, therefore proving that they were not in Christ.  They were just a few among many branches broken off of the Vine, falling away because of unbelief (Romans 11:16-22) throughout all generations. We are to see those who fell away as a warning so that we may be diligent to persevere in faith.  We see this same theme throughout Hebrews and in Jesus’s Parable of the Sower: the difference between those who are finally saved and those who fall away after only appearing to be saved is time and endurance, revealed through trials.  But all had entered into the visible people of God.  Interestingly, Paul refers to this entrance as baptism into Christ, pointing to immense continuity between the covenants.  This means that the sign of their entrance (circumcision) is closely related to ours (baptism), which Paul links to the cross:

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. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

-Colossians 2:11-14, ESV

This clearly shows that both baptism and circumcision represent the same spiritual reality, even while there are differences in their application.  And since Israelite boys were circumcised and children were part of the covenant, the Jewish Christians listening to Peter at Pentecost would have expected that the new sign of the covenant should likewise be applied to their children.  And while it is always dangerous to argue from silence, the absence of any direct Scriptural command excluding children from baptism lends much more credence to the pedobaptist than baptistic position since the latter would have constituted a much more drastic shift in covenant understanding.  All of this together at the very least shows that covenant baptism is biblical.  Again, this does not mean that the baptistic position is unbiblical.  There is room in the Kingdom for both of us!

What We Agree On

Since baptism clearly represents the cross that unites us, we should not be surprised that covenant pedobaptist and the faithful Baptist actually have much in common.  Both see the physical act of baptism not as a saving act but a picture of what Scripture describes as spiritual baptism: the atonement of Christ, the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, the justification of the Father, etc.  Surprisingly, the passage most often used by proponents of baptismal regeneration clearly refers to this spiritual rather than physical baptism:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

-1 Peter 3:18-22, ESV

Peter likens baptism to the Flood, in which God’s people—in this case Noah and his family—passed through the waters of God’s wrath alive while all who were not united with Christ by faith like Noah’s were drowned.  This is a spiritual reality, so it is the spiritual baptism—the work of the Triune God in the life of the believer resulting in faith and repentance—that saves, not the physical act of immersing, sprinkling, or pouring.  We also agree that physical and spiritual baptism do not occur simultaneously.  For the Baptist, physical baptism occurs after we have reason to believe that spiritual baptism has happened.  For pedobaptists, it is the same for converts, but for infants physical baptism is performed before spiritual baptism with hope in God that the latter will one day occur.  And we both recognize that there are similarities and differences between circumcision and baptism, even if we may disagree on their degree.  Finally, we all agree that baptism is the sign of entrance into the church and must be performed with water in the Triune Name of God.  We have so much in common that in most cases a Baptist can feel right at home in a church practicing covenant baptism and vice versa.

Dealing With Baptismal Conflict

In this age in which faithful churches are so rare, they will often contain believers with differing convictions on baptism—and can do so with peace and brotherhood. We must not divide the local church over this, but there are practical considerations we need to address.  We must first recognize the authority and responsibility God has given to church elders and heads of households.  On one hand, God holds the husband as head accountable for his family, but on the other hand God holds pastors accountable for the members of their congregations.  Fathers therefore have real authority to decide whether their children should be baptized, while elders have authority over how baptism is practiced in their own churches.  Thus, both should approach every situation with wisdom and humility. 

Those holding to covenant baptism joining a baptistic church will want their children’s baptism to be recognized by the church whereas the church will likely want the children to be rebaptized after making a profession of faith.  Joe Rigney (a Baptist) addresses this well, reiterating a position that has existed since the Reformation.  To be proper under the 1689 London Baptist Confession, baptism must be by water, in the Triune Name of God, by immersion, and following repentance and faith in Christ.  Baptisms lacking the latter two but still by water in the Triune Name can be considered “valid but improper”.  Therefore a baptistic church can accept an infant baptism.  This same concept can be applied to pedobaptist churches that require (as the Westminster Confession does) that baptism must be performed by a minister.  So baptisms performed by lay people would be valid but improper in such churches.  Ultimately, Rigney noted that we are all called into the invisible church but baptized into the visible church—and not individual churches.  Therefore it is proper for a church to view a baptism as valid even if it was performed improperly as long as the fruit of faith and repentance can be seen in the person.  I would urge both sides to embrace the “valid but improper” perspective in order to promote unity in the church. 

Under this view, if a pedobaptist family attends a baptistic church because there are no faithful pedobaptist churches nearby, the elders should recognize the father’s authority in this matter, even if that includes the family having children baptized at another church.  But the family must also recognize the authority of the elders in this and all other matters pertaining to the church and must be careful to avoid causing division.  Since we cannot love Jesus without loving His Church, causing division over issues like this is a sign of unbelief and grounds for church discipline.  Nevertheless, differing views on baptism have very real and practical implications, so it is appropriate for families to peacefully leave churches over these convictions.  So while baptism has divided the Reformed church for five centuries, it doesn’t have to divide our local churches.   All who are baptized into Christ are one in Him after all:

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

-Galatians 3:25-29, ESV

Do Not Delay

I have one final exhortation for my Baptist brethren.  Baptist parents and churches often delay baptism of their children until the can be sure that regeneration has happened.  This often means denying baptism to children who clearly understand the Gospel and are bearing the fruit of faith and repentance.  But the pattern of Scripture is that baptism should come quickly, as with Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:36) and Paul (Acts 9:18).  Only God has access to the Book of Life, so we cannot be sure of anyone’s salvation.  But as we saw recently, the children of believing parents who faithfully and diligently bring them up in the discipline and instruction of God will trust in Him much more often than not.  It is best not to wait for an obvious conversion, since God’s normal method of working in the children of faithful parents means many children will not be able to identify their point of conversion.  Instead, look for fruit of faith and repentance.  If the fruit is there, the faith is there, so baptism is good and proper.  So do not withhold baptism longer than necessary. 

In conclusion, while the debate about whether to baptize infants or not has raged for five centuries, we can and should seek unity as brothers and sisters in Christ.  Baptism actually unites us by identifying us as part of the visible people of God, so let the world see our unity rather than division as we approach any differences with love, humility, and submission to Scripture.

Resources and Further Study:

• Douglas Wilson, To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism—Covenant Mercy for the People of God, Moscow, ID: Canon Press: 1996: This short book was written to explain the covenant baptism position to Baptists and is very helpful and approachable. 
• J.V. Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism, Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books: 2010: This book is more academic but gives a more thorough description of the topic, including the positions on baptism throughout church history.
• John Calvin covers baptism in Institutes of the Christian Religion.  I found his explanation in the single volume version (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Translated from the First French Edition of 1541 by Robert White, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2014) helpful, but thought his stance was overly strong against Baptists.  I believe this is due in large part to the differences between Reformed Baptists of today and the Anabaptists of his day. 
• My current church started as a Reformed Baptist church but then transitioned to full covenant theology including covenant baptism, so I recommend listening to their seminar on baptism.