Introduction
The right candidates for baptism have been debated ever since the Reformation with the radical reformers called the Anabaptists. The two main positions are called paedobaptism and credobaptism. Paedobaptism refers to the theological doctrine that affirms infants ought to be baptized. Credobaptism refers to the theological doctrine that affirms one must pronounce faith before they are baptized. However, the catholic church has held to paedobaptism from the beginning of the church through the Reformation, with all of Classical Protestantism (Reformed, Anglican, Lutheran) affirming infant baptism. Credobaptism is actually the minority view throughout church history and the majority of the reformers considered Anabaptists heretics for withholding baptism from the children of believers. The main argument for infant baptism in the Reformed tradition employs a covenantal structure that relates the circumcision of the Old Covenant to the baptism of the New Covenant. I will show why this argument is biblically sound through the accumulation of many passages and show historically that paedobaptism is the universal position. Some preliminary discussion is needed though. Firstly, the biblical case for infant baptism is not a list of explicit proof texts. Secondly, it uses good and necessary consequences which all Confessional Protestants hold to be rightly used, as the WCF says, “. . .is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” Finally, the argument uses broad themes we see throughout Scripture in the covenants between God and man.
The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism
Beginning with the similarities between the covenant family of the Old and the covenant family of the New, both covenant administrations are, in substance, the same since the same promises apply to both. Both rely on faith in Christ to receive righteousness (Romans 3:20-26; 4:13; Galatians 3:7-26). Members of both administrations are grafted into Christ (Romans 11:17-26, Ephesians 2:11-19). The church under the New is given the same names as Israel under the Old (1 Peter 2:9, Galatians 6:16, Philippians 3:3). Regeneration is given to both (Deuteronomy 30:6, Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26). Those under the Old are also called the church (Gk. Ecclesia, Hebrews 2:12, Acts 7:38 Hb. Qahul, Psalm 22:20). Finally, both are members of the same covenant (Genesis 17:7-19, 2 Samuel 23:5, Isaiah 61:8, Jeremiah 32:40, Hebrews 13:20). These verses show that in substance the Old and New are the same. Aristotelian terminology is helpful here with substance and accidents. In substance, they are the same, but per accidents (properties) they are different. Next, children of believers under the Old were included in the covenant (Genesis 17:10-12) and Old Testament prophecies about the New Covenant include children of believers in the covenant (Jeremiah 32:38-40, Ezekiel 37:24-26, Isaiah 59:21). Under the New Covenant, children of believers are included in the covenant (Luke 18:15-16, Ephesians 6:1-3, Acts 2:39). 1 Corinthians 7 is an explicit passage where it calls children of believers holy (i.e. set apart, sanctified, a property for only those belonging to a covenant with God). A syllogism using this passage is helpful. All children of believers are set apart. All those who are set apart belong to the covenant. Therefore, all children of believers belong to the covenant (if they belong to the covenant why not give them the sign of entrance into the covenant, baptism?). Also, household baptisms indicate the same thing (Acts 16:15, 33-34, 1 Corinthians 1:16). Next, baptism and circumcision both signify an engrafting and entrance into the covenant (Ephesians 4:4-7, Genesis 17). The similarities between the two are abundant. Baptism is linked with regeneration (Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38) and circumcision (Deuteronomy 10:16, Romans 2:28-29). Baptism is connected to the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39). I just realized this is making a very good case for baptismal efficacy but that’s beside the point. They both also point to participation in Christ’s death (Colossians 2:11-12, Romans 6:3). So, with believers across the ages belonging to the same covenant in substance, children of believers being included by both, and baptism replacing circumcision with the same promises attached to them, why would we not baptize children of believers under the New? Would a more promising, fulfilling, and inclusive covenant exclude those who were included under the Old, a more exclusive covenant? The New Testament makes it clear that this is not the case. Children of believers are always included in the covenant as shown in the verses above. If they are included in the covenant, they deserve the sacrament of engrafting under the New, the same way they were included under the Old.
Historical Evidence
The paedobaptist position is also the universal position of the catholic church for the majority of Christendom. Beginning with an explicit statement in the second century, Irenaeus says, “‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].” Hippolytus in the early third century says, “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” This same line of thinking is carried through the centuries by Origen, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Augustine, later councils, and throughout the middle ages. Even through the Reformation, paedobaptism was the position of the magisterial reformers against the radical Anabaptists. They have strong statements against those who bar infants from baptism. The Scots Confession of Faith (1560, John Knox played a substantial part in this) says, “and thus we utterly damn the vanity of those that affirm sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by baptism we are engrafted in Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his justice, by the which our sins are covered and remitted; and also, that in the supper, rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us, that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls. And so we damn the error of the Anabaptists, who deny baptism to appertain to children before that they have faith and understanding.” The Second Helvetic Confession (1564, where Henry Bullinger played a substantial part) says, “We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God, and they are in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of God’s covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism? We condemn also the Anabaptists in the rest of their peculiar doctrines which they hold contrary to the Word of God. We therefore are not Anabaptists and have nothing in common with them.” Ursinus on the Heidelburg Catechism says, “From all these things it is clear that the denial of infant baptism is no trifling error, but a grievous heresy, in direct opposition to the word of God, and the comfort of the church. Wherefore this and similar follies of the sect of the Anabaptists should be carefully avoided, since they have, without doubt, been hatched by the devil, and are detestable heresies which they have fabricated from various errors and blasphemies.” There are many more quotes that can be adduced for the reformers’ detestation of Anabaptists but hopefully this suffices. So, even in historic Protestantism, the denial of infant baptism was condemned. With the historical evidence showing throughout the church age the overwhelming support of infant baptism, we must ask, where is the true church if paedobaptism is false? A mark of a true church is the right administration of the sacraments. One would have to say that for hundreds upon hundreds of years in the church there were hardly any valid baptisms. Did the gates of hell prevail against the church?
Objections
Some will object to this practice by saying infant baptism is not explicitly commanded; and therefore, should not be practiced. However, if one applies this principle to the rest of Scripture, he will see quickly that this hermeneutic cannot stand to orthodoxy. Many orthodox doctrines one must affirm are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture such as the Holy Trinity and Homoousion (i.e. the Son being of the same substance as the Father). Regarding the sacrament of Communion, is there any explicit mention of women communing? No. Does that mean women should not commune? Of course not. Through good and necessary consequences we can deduce fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Others will object saying baptism in the New Testament is always posterior to faith and repentance. Firstly, we have to realize that in the book of Acts, it is the first generation of Christians. The people that were being saved were outside the visible church so they must profess faith and repentance before being baptized. But this same principle does not apply to those part of the visible church and covenant by birth. One would also have to make an inference to say that this same pattern took place in the household baptisms, directly contradicting the Baptist hermeneutic.
One More Observation
In John 15 and Romans 11, Scripture says that one can be cut off from the covenant for not bearing fruits. Baptists that hold one cannot lose their salvation have no sound way of interpreting how people are cut off for the lack of fruits. These chapters directly indicate that there is still a mixed membership under the New like there was under the Old Covenant. Under the Old Covenant, people were a part of it without being saved. They had received the outward reality of circumcision which initiated them into the covenant. However, when some grew up, they showed no signs (fruits) of the inward reality of the circumcision; and therefore, were cut off from the covenant (see Romans 2:28-29). This same language is applied to the New Covenant in John 15:1-17 and Romans 11. Those who do not bear fruits are cut off from the covenant (concept of covenantal merit). The outward/inward distinction of receiving circumcision under the Old and baptism under the New accounts for this without saying one can lose their salvation; however, a Baptist who believes a person cannot lose their salvation cannot account for these passages (see also Hebrews 10:29).
Conclusion
As shown, infant baptism is biblical and the historic position of the universal church. The covenantal structure in Scripture always includes the children of believers. It also shows the similarities between circumcision, which was applied to the infants of the Old, and baptism. There is no Scriptural reasoning for why infants of believers would be excluded from the New Covenant. On the contrary, the New Covenant is more inclusive. Also, the church at large has always affirmed paedobaptism. Moreover, there are many passages that the Baptists cannot account for. So, go baptize your babies, for they are set apart and sanctified! “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you 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 2:38-39).'”