10 Arguments for Paedobaptism with Credobaptist Responses
ThinkSquad,
We love our children, and we want to do all we can to ensure they are brought up in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
One issue that has divided the church is baptism. Broadly speaking, believers are divided into two categories—paedobaptists, who believe in baptizing the infant children of Christians, and credobaptists, who believe in baptizing only professing believers in Jesus Christ.
There are faithful believers in Jesus Christ who are on both sides of this issue. Although I do not personally hold that both positions are equally valid, this is not something we are to "kick each other out of the Kingdom" over." I have deep respect and appreciation for my brothers and sisters in Christ who believe differently than I do on this matter. I have learned a ton from paedobaptist preachers, teachers and theologians over the years.
Now, there is also a further division within the church, which has to do with what baptism "does." Does baptism actually cause a person to be born again (regenerated)? This issue is potentially more serious, because it risks associating a work with salvation. And Scripture is clear that we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works (cf. Ephesians 2:8–9). This is not to say that everyone who holds to a baptismal regeneration position is automatically subscribing to a works-based doctrine of salvation, but the danger is there.
In the following guide, I will address several arguments, or challenges, that a paedobaptist brother in Christ raised. His goal was to support the idea of infant baptism. As you will see, there are also elements of baptismal regeneration woven through the argumentation.
My goal with this guide is two-fold: (1) I want to respond to each of the challenges in a faithful way—and in a way that will help you as you seek to navigate this issue. And (2) I am interested to know what my paedobaptist fellow believers think about my responses to these challenges. I don't expect I will change many minds, but perhaps we can understand each other a little better.
So, whether you are deciding whether to baptize your own infant children, or you are navigating the purpose and meaning of baptism, or are interested in knowing one Baptist's thining on the subject of baptism, I pray this guide will prove useful.
If you enjoy this, you will also enjoy the Worldview Legacy Podcast. It's the show that helps Christian laymen (both paedobaptist and credobaptist) become the worldview leaders their families and churches need. You can find the links to an episode with a debate on baptism between myself and a Roman Catholic traditionalist (whose views are, I would say, out of step with biblical orthodoxy), at the end of this guide.
The 10 Challenges and Responses
Challenge #1: Baptism is mandated by Christ. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).
Response:
Who is being baptized? Disciples, i.e. followers/students of Jesus.
These are believers being inaugurated into the church (see note on 1 Cor. 12:13 below). Baptism is a subordinate clause to the dominant clause, literally reading "Disciple all nations" or "make disciples of all nations." This is describing the extent of the apostolic mission (global) and the process by which it is executed (going, baptizing and teaching). Are infants, even the children of Christians, rightly called disciples, when they haven't repented and trusted in Christ (because unable to do so)? If not, are they candidates for baptism according to Christ's words here?
Challenge #2: Baptism cleanses. "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word…" (Eph 5:25–26).
Response:
This verse could be a reference to baptism, but if it is, it's about Christ's relationship to the church, those for whom Christ died to sanctify. Are unbelieving infants in mind here? This certainly doesn't seem to be a positive argument in favor of that.
Challenge #3: Baptism is connected to the forgiveness of sins. Peter (said) to them, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’ (Acts 2:38)
Response:
What does Peter say is the prerequisite for baptism and forgiveness? Repentance. No one argues that Peter would have baptized his audience if they had not understood or believed his message, or if they had not repented. Can an infant repent? If not, how does the infant meet Peter's requirement?
Challenge #4: In baptism, we die to sin by dying with Christ in his death. "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life…So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:1-4, 11).
Response:
To whom is Paul writing this—who is the "we" here? According to Romans 1 it is "you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ (1:6)... who are loved by God and called to be saints (1:7), who have faith (1:8, 12)." Do infants have faith?
Further, is this something you would say to your infant post-baptism, that he has now died to sin—totally irrespective of his lack of understanding of the Gospel, let alone repentance and faith? Is death to sin not the result of repentance and faith, of which baptism is an outward sign? Is it really possible that the death, burial and resurrection signified by baptism (which is best pictured by immersion, which is what the Greek word "baptizo" meant, and not sprinkling) can be divorced from repentance and faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? Is it the ritual act itself, or the repentance and faith, that unites the baptized disciple to Christ? If it's the repentance and faith, and the infant has not been given those yet, then why baptize him?
Challenge #5: In baptism, we are reborn to righteousness. "He saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:5-7).
Response:
The "bath of rebirth" (or "washing of regeneration" in the ESV) is the spiritual cleansing of being born again ("regenerated"), not merely the act of baptism. This is clear in that Paul attributes the work not to the pastor or the one immersing the disciples, but to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit doesn't do the physical baptizing, but rather he does the spiritual regeneration.
Further, while the phrase, "we might be justified" sounds as though justification might come after baptism, the Greek says δικαιωθέντες, which is an aorist passive participle, better translated as "being justified."
In other words, the justification of the disciple is not something that "may come" after one is baptized, but rather a reality in the disciple's life. This is what the "bath of rebirth" accomplishes. Is this not the experience of the believer who experiences new birth by the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ?
Is this a reality in the infant's life? If so, doesn't that entail that it is the physical act of baptism (a "work of righteousness") that secures justification and regeneration (salvation) for the infant? And wouldn't this negate Paul's claim in 3:5, when he says "he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness?
Challenge #6: In baptism, we are united with Christ in death and resurrection. "You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Colossians 2:12).
Response:
Who is the "you" Paul is writing to? Colossians 1:2 says it is "the saints and faithful brothers in Christ." According to 1:4 it's those who have "faith in Christ Jesus" and "love... for all the saints" and "hope... in heaven." In 1:6 we learn that it is those who have "heard [the gospel] and understood the grace of God in truth."
Is an infant a saint? Is an infant faithful? Does an infant love all the saints? Does an infant have hope laid up in heaven? Do infants hear the Gospel and understand God's grace in truth? If not, then how do Paul's statements in 2:12 apply to them?
Challenge #7: In baptism, we are Incorporated into Christ’s Body, the Church. "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (I Corinthians 12:13).
Response:
Who is Paul's intended audience? He tells us in chapter 1: It is "the church of God that is in Corinth, those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ..." (1:2) and who "were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge," among whom the testimony about Christ "was confirmed among you."
Do infants have the understanding to call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ? Do they confirm the Gospel through their speech and knowledge? Or is it clear that, when Paul refers to their baptism, he is addressing those who have faith in Christ—who have been inwardly sanctified and responded, in faith, by being baptized as believers and not as infants incapable of belief?
Further, in this passage Paul is exhorting believers to unite together as one body. Are we to think that infants could hear such an exhortation and respond to it?
Challenge #8: Baptism is connected to our salvation. "...to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him" (1 Peter 3:20-22).
Response:
This passage doesn't merely say baptism is connected with salvation, but that it "saves!" That's strong language. So what about baptism saves? Is it not that, by being baptized, the disciple identifies with the "resurrection of Jesus Christ?" Is this something an infant is capable of understanding and acknowledging?
Further, the word rendered "pledge" is ἐπερώτημα, an "enquiry," "demand," or "craving." The ESV renders it "appeal." In other words, is Peter not saying that baptism is associated with an "appeal" to God for a clear conscience—for forgiveness of sins? Is this not what we call repentance and faith? Do infants make such appeals? Are they capable of this kind of repentance and faith? If not, could Peter be speaking to them in this passage, regardless of what rituals their parents and pastors had performed on their behalf?
Challenge #9: Baptism is connected to circumcision, which is sign of the old covenant. Circumcision was performed on infants. Since baptism is the new circumcision, baptism may also be performed on infants. "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" (Colossians 2:11-12).
Response:
Again, this passage is directed to believers (see note on Col. 2:12 above). But note there are two images here—(1) that of circumcision, which Paul equates with the "putting off [of] the body of the flesh," i.e. being "cut off" from the life and mind of the fleshly nature, and (2) that of burial and resurrection, which Paul associates with their baptism. Is he really equating physical circumcision? Or, is it clear that he is equating physical circumcision with spiritual "circumcision," and Christ's physical burial with their spiritual "burial?"
Further, circumcision was not the sign of the Old Covenant (of Moses) but of the Abrahamic Covenant, in which God promised Abraham land, offspring and blessing. Abraham's offspring were to be circumcised as a sign that they belonged to, and were a partial fulfillment of, that covenant. But this was done irrespective of any internal spiritual realities related to their own hearts, justification or salvation. It was a fleshly sign to signify a physical reality—they were the genetic descendants of Abraham.
Finally, even if baptism were the New Covenant version of circumcision, then it should only be applied to "infants" in the New Covenant. In the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants, members entered at physical birth/conception.
However, in the New Covenant, covenant membership is inaugurated upon new birth—regeneration. Just as circumcision did not *cause* physical birth but was administered after birth, so in the same way, baptism would *cause* rebirth but would need to be administered after rebirth.
This negates any argument that would posit that baptism of infants *causes* them to be spiritually reborn or saved. No work can save, save the work of Christ on the cross.
Challenge #10: Baptism is for entire households. These passages don’t mean that children were necessarily baptized, but it leaves the possibility open. "And after she [Lydia] was baptized, and her household as well…" (Acts 16:15); "and he [Philippian jailor] was baptized at once, he and all his family" (Acts 16:33). In the Greco-Roman world, the word “household” included children of all ages (as well as servants, relatives, etc.).
Response:
Neither passage mentions children, let alone infants too young to believe. Neither passage expressly mentions the baptism of any person who did not believe in Christ.
In the case of the Philippian jailor, Paul and Silas told the jailer that "you and your household" would be saved upon believing "in the Lord Jesus" (16:31). Paul and Silas "spoke the word" to "all who were in his house (16:32), and "he and all his family" were baptized and "rejoiced" that he had believed in God. Does not the response and rejoicing of his family indicate that they were all overjoyed that their father had heard and believed the Gospel, because it led to the salvation of the entire household?
In Lydia's case, there is no mention of family. Her household may have consisted of servants/employees (she was a business owner (16:14) and likely would have done business out of her home). It may also have consisted of a husband and children, but no mention of family is made.
Is it not a leap to jump from descriptive passages in which no mention of children or infants is made, to a didactic teaching that pre-believing infants may be baptized? Is this truly a reliable method of interpreting the Bible to determine which practices are normative for the church?
Challenge #10: Children are potential candidates. Children are potential candidates for the kingdom, which can be entered only by birth of the water (i.e. baptism) and the Spirit. We have to conclude then, that baptism is a possibility for the young. "When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these'" (Mt 10:14); "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:6).
Response:
This argument from Mt. 19:14 (not 10:14) is the only one that seems to carry some weight in the argument. However, upon examination, it does not really support infant baptism.
In this passage, is Jesus teaching on baptism? Or is he reiterating what he already said in Matthew 18:3: “Truly I tell you,” he said, “unless you turn and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven"? Notice the use of the word "turn." Isn't it clear that Jesus is advocating repentance? Is Jesus saying that the Kingdom of Heaven exclusively belongs to children, or rather to those who are like little children ("such as these")," in that they are humble (Matthew 18:4)?
It's apparent from this passage that Jesus loves and values children. This makes sense given all the teachings throughout Scripture about God knowing and forming us in the womb (cf. Jeremiah 1:5; Psalm 139, etc.), yet this is not a positive teaching that infants should be baptized.
Moreover, if Jesus is saying that these children already possessed the Kingdom of Heaven, then they possessed it without having been baptized, since baptism hadn't been instituted as an ordinance/sacrament yet. So again, this passage does not give positive support for infant baptism.
Further, John 3:6 cannot be mandating baptism as a requirement for entering God's kingdom, because this would rule out the thief on the cross (who died without being baptized and yet was promised to see Jesus in paradise (Luke 23:39-43), as well as every Old Testament believer (who, while they descended to Sheol prior to Christ's death, will certainly see the kingdom of God (cf. Hebrews 11:40).
Rather, John 3:6 is likely a callback to Ezekiel 36:25-27: "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean... And I will put my Spirit within you." Even if Jesus were referring to baptism here, he makes "water birth" inseparable from "Spirit birth." And when does a person receive the Holy Spirit? When he believes: "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 1:3).
Conclusion
All this to say, the Bible does not present a positive case for infant baptism, but rather overwhelmingly teaches that baptism is to be administered to those who have turned and believed in Jesus Christ for salvation. The case is perhaps not as clear as some would like, and there are undoubtedly other verses we could examine (Acts 2:39 comes to mind), but there is only one reasonable conclusion we may draw from the whole testimony of Scripture, and that is that baptism is for believers only.
So we evangelize and teach our children. We pray for them. We may even dedicate them to the Lord (which is really more of a self-dedication of the parents and congregation to raise them in the truth). But we are not justified, biblically, to baptize our unbelieving or pre-believing infants.
We have not discussed the problems that arise later in life, when a previously "baptized" child has grown up and either (a) wants to observe believer's baptism out of obedience to Christ, or (b) never makes a profession of faith and actually experiences the biblical definition of regeneration. We have also not dug deeply into the problematic implications of thinking that any action of a child's parents or pastor, however well-intentioned, could somehow secure salvation, justification, or regeneration for a child. The theological pitfalls there rise up pretty quickly upon consideration.
I want to reaffirm my love and solidarity with my brothers and sisters in Christ who believe in paedobaptism. I may not agree with you on this topic, but I’ll gladly stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you in the great cause of Jesus Christ.
—-
Thank you for reading. Did you find this helpful? If so, the episode "How to Avoid Being Led to a False Conclusion" is for you! It's a brief debate I had with a Roman Catholic on the subject of baptism and regeneration. If you're interested in that, listen on
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6JoShrP5R6oFjHRYizIhfM?si=cCQDVmjcTBK--BWx0tMBEw
Everywhere else: https://pod.link/1462722483/episode/ff9db1a3dd4686f42c3199a9679e2767
In Christ,
Joel Settecase