Arguments for Infant Baptism

One of those “sticking points” with regard to embracing the Reformed faith is the practice of paedobaptism ( infant baptism, perhaps better termed “household baptism” or “covenant baptism”). Sometimes the charge is made that this is nothing more than Roman Catholic baptism — but this would more or less mean the person knows very little about the vast differences between a Roman Catholic infant baptism and a Presbyterian one (beyond the obvious similarities of water, and infant, and a Trinitarian formula, there isn’t that much in common). Furthermore, heretical groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons baptize adults by immersion; would we tar and feather credobaptists (those who reserve baptism for adults upon profession of faith) for the surface similarities here? Of course not, nor should we. Christian brethren should be far more gracious and far more wise in their analysis of such things. Anecdotally, I have been told of some credobaptist churches that maintain that a person cannot be saved unless they are immersed as an adult. Not only is that ignorant theology, it is false theology, and it should be rejected.

Below, I have included two helpful lists of arguments that show the foundations of the practice of paedobaptism. The first is a summary found in Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology (the list is found here); the second is a summary of points by Michael Horton (found here). Even if you are opposed to infant baptism, my hope is that through these points you will at least see that the practice has Scriptural foundations and is not simply based upon bare traditionalism, as is sometimes charged (i.e., even if you disagree, you will see there are valid reasons for the practice). Quite the opposite, the charge could be leveled at some credobaptists that they have never considered a position contrary to their own, and are following a system that they know simply through their own form of traditionalism. But consider the words of 19th century Presbyterian theologian Samuel Miller on this issue:

I can assure you … that, for more than fifteen hundred years after the birth of Christ, there was not a single society of professing Christians on earth, who opposed infant baptism on any thing like the grounds which distinguish our modern Baptist brethren.

Anyway, enough pontificating from me (pun fully intended ). Here are the lists:

In the present discussion, by the Church is meant what is called the visible Church; that is, the whole body of those who profess the true religion … With regard to infant baptism the following propositions may be maintained.

1. The visible Church is a divine institution …

2. The visible Church does not consist exclusively of the regenerate …

3. The commonwealth of Israel was the Church …

4. The [visible] Church under the new dispensation is identical with that under the old. It is not a new Church, but one and the same. It is the same olive-tree (Rom. 11:16-17). It is founded on the same covenant, the covenant made with Abraham …

5. The terms of admission into the [visible] Church before the advent were the same that are required into the Christian Church …

6. Infants were members of the [visible] Church under the Old Testament economy … This is really the turning point in the controversy concerning infant church-membership. If the Church is one under both dispensations; if infants were members of the Church under the theocracy, then they are members of the Church now, unless the contrary can be proved.

7. There is nothing in the New Testament which justifies the exclusion of the children of believers from membership in the Church …

8. Children need, and are capable of receiving the benefits of redemption …

God has brought us into a covenant of grace, and although not all members of this covenant will persevere (i.e., they are not elect and have not been regenerated), they enjoy special privileges of belonging to covenant people. This was true of Israel, and the New Testament simply applies this to the New Testament church as well (Deut. 4:20; 28:9; Isa. 10:22; Hosea 2:23; Rom. 9:24-28; Gal. 6:16; Heb. 4:1-11; 6:4-12; 1 Peter 2:9-10).

Even though bringing someone under the protection of God’s covenantal faithfulness does not guarantee that that person possesses true, persevering faith (Heb. 4:1-11), that does not mean it is unimportant as to whether children of believers are given the seal of the covenant.

Children were included in the covenant of grace in the Old Testament through the sacrament of circumcision, and in the new covenant (called the “better covenant”), God has not changed in his good intentions toward our children (Acts 2:38). Circumcision has been replaced by baptism (Col. 2:11). Therefore, our children must receive God’s sign and seal of covenant ownership.

The children of unbelievers are unholy, but the children of believers are set apart unto God. This is a distinction not only of the Old Testament (see the Passover, Exod. 12:42-51; also the distinction between the “house of the wicked” and the “house of the righteous,” especially in the psalms) but is continued in the New, where a believer’s children are regarded as holy (1 Cor. 10:2). How are they marked or distinguished from unbelievers, then? By the sign and seal of the covenant.

Household baptisms are common in the New Testament reports of such events. Surely at least some of them included infants. If so, this would have been perfectly consistent with the Jewish understanding of the Abrahamic covenant (above, #4).

There is an unbroken record in church history supporting the practice of infant baptism, beginning with the earliest generations. There would surely have been a major controversy if the immediate successors of the apostles departed from the apostolic practice on such a vital point. However, no such record exists.

If baptism were a testimony of the believer’s faithfulness to the covenant, it would not be capable of being applied to those who have no faithfulness to offer. However, baptism is the word of God, not of human beings. It is not chiefly a sign of the believer’s commitment to God (although it certainly entails that) but of God’s commitment to call out a people for himself. Because salvation is by grace alone, God acts in salvation prior to any human choice or action (Rom. 9:12-16). Infant baptism is an extraordinary divine testimony to his prevenient grace. Consequently, it obligates those who are baptized to remain faithful to the covenant but does not make their faithfulness a prerequisite of their inclusion.

The reason there are so many examples in the New Testament of baptism only upon profession of faith is that the first generation is in view. As with Abraham’s circumcision, an adult trusts in God’s promise and is justified–and only afterwards is baptized. But also like Abraham, we present our household to receive the sign and seal. No orthodox Christian body would accept the practice of baptizing adults without a profession of faith.