A hallmark of Presbyterianism is infant baptism—specifically the belief that children of believing parents are to be baptized. While I addressed this topic a few weeks ago in Sunday School, I figured it would be wise to take that information and put it into a blog format. I will first address five reasons why infants of believing parents should be baptized, and then I will address five common arguments from brothers and sisters in Christ that are against infant baptism.
Why Should Infants of Believing Parents Be Baptized?
1. Covenant Theology – The primary supporting argument for infant baptism stems from the belief that God has governed his people under one overarching covenant, the covenant of grace, made up two dispensations: the old covenant and the new covenant. This view is known as covenant theology. Because the old covenant and new covenant are different dispensations of the one covenant of grace, we should expect some continuity between the two covenants. This continuity shows up in the recipients of the covenant of sign.
In the Old Testament, God commanded Abraham to administer the covenant sign of circumcision to both infants and adults who were part of the covenant community (Genesis 17:9–12). In the New Testament, the sign of the covenant is baptism. Because there is continuity between the old and new covenant and the fact that the New Testament never excludes infants of believing parents from baptism, the sign of the covenant is to be administered to infants of believing parents as well—just like in the Old Testament.
2. Household Baptisms – We read about numerous household baptisms in the New Testament (Acts 16:15, 25–34; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16). To understand how these household baptisms support infant baptism, we must know what the word "household" meant in that time. If you were to think about what "nice" meant today, you'd give a positive definition; however, up until the 19th century "nice" was parallel to calling someone foolish. I give this example to demonstrate the fact that words have specific meanings to people of a specific time. Therefore, as we read the word "household" and wonder who was in that household, we cannot impose our 21st century definition onto the 1st century writers of Scripture.
This raises the question: what did "household" mean back then? The Greek word (οἶκος) had four primary meanings: (1) a building/dwelling place, (2) a household/family, (3) a clan or group of descendants, (4) property, estate (BDAG s.v. "οἶκος"). For the household baptisms of the New Testament, only options (2) and (3) make much sense. Of these, option (2) is the most likely given that someone couldn't baptism descendants that were not yet born. Therefore, household baptisms were baptisms of just that: an entire household/family.
Many brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with infant baptism agree to this. However, where they disagree is the fact that infants were a part of these baptisms. It is correct that these passages in the New Testament do not articulate the age of who was baptized; however, the writers didn't need to in order to get their point across. When you read the sentence "The school went on a field trip" who do you think of? Do you think of an elementary school with young children? A middle or high school? What about adult teachers and administrators? The truth is that the word "school" suggests to us all of those meanings. For the original writers and readers of the New Testament, the word "household" suggests members of all ages, including infants. Because of this, the burden of proof is placed on those arguing against infant baptism, and simply put, there is not enough evidence to argue that each family in these household baptisms of Scripture were all people of a "believing age."
3. The Argument from Promises – When we look at the words of Scripture, we see that God did not narrow the promises of the Old Testament. On the day of Pentecost, after Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit among his people, Peter says that the promise of the Holy Spirit is for converting believers and their children (Acts 2:38–39).
4. The Argument from History – There are numerous accounts of infant baptism being practiced in the early church. Tertullian (160–220 AD) mentions it in his On Baptism (ANF 3:678). While Tertullian was not a fan of infant baptism, the mere fact that he mentioned it means it was happening! Origen (185–254 AD) in his Commentary on Romans says that infant baptism was handed down from the apostles (5.9.11). Augustine (354–430 AD) also argues in favor of infant baptism in his work against the Pelagians. To make a blanket statement and say that there is no early church evidence of infant baptism would be a false claim.
5. The Argument from "It doesn't say not to." – Scripture never says that infants/children of believing parents that are "too young to believe" should not be baptized. This will be discussed further below. (And yes, this argument can also be flipped: Scripture never explicitly commands that infants should be baptized).
Answering Five Common Objections to Infant Baptism
1. Believer's Baptism – The primary argument against infant baptism is that one must profess belief before receiving the covenant sign of baptism. The difficulty with this claim, however, is that Scripture never says this says. The most cited verse to defend this view is Acts 2:38, which says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ…” There a couple problems with arguing that this verse supports what is known as believer's baptism.
First and foremost, to argue that this verse supports believer’s only baptism is to ignore the historical context of the passage. When Peter spoke these words he was speaking to adult Jews. Acts 2 is set in the context of Pentecost. Jews from all around had made the journey to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Pentecost. While families often accompanied men on this trip, Peter says twice that he is speaking to adult men (Acts 2:5, 14). So, when Peter says “repent and be baptized” he is talking to adult Jews who were unbelievers. Everyone, including Presbyterians, agree that adult unbelievers, before getting baptized, must get baptized again (if they haven’t already been baptized once).
The second main concern is that the word “and” does not support a logical connection. When Peter says “repent and be baptized” that is not a command that in all cases repentance must come first. The conjunction “and” in the Greek is known as a coordinate conjunction; there is no logical or causal relationship between what comes before and after the “and.” If I was to tell you, “clean your room and take the dog out” do you have to clean your room first? Of course not! We intuitively know that “and” does not imply any necessity on the order of events. The same is true for Greek word translated as "and."
The third problem is that the very next verse establishes a connection to the children. Peter writes, “For the promise is for you and for your children…” (Acts 2:39). The promise of the Holy Spirit is for the repenting adult believers and their children.
2. The Word Means to Immerse – Another popular argument against infant baptism concerns the mode of baptism. Baptism must be administered through immersion; therefore, infants should not be baptized. While this is not a blog about immersion baptism, because the mode of baptism is so closely connected in arguments to the recipients of baptism, I will briefly discuss it here.
The argument relies on understanding what the word “baptism” means. Proponents of immersion baptism argue that the Greek word (βαπτίζω) “I/to baptize” literally means “immerse.” However, when one connects this one meaning of the word to an argument against infant baptism, he or she is likely committing one of two fallacies.
The first fallacy of this argument is the etymological fallacy. Proponents of immersion baptism point to the literal definition of the word based on the word’s root/source, which does mean to dip/immerse. However, just because the root of the word means that, does not mean the word does too. The verb “manufacture” comes stone to Latin words for “hand” and making.” Literally, “to manufacture” means to “make by hand,” but is this what the word means? No, of course not. People manufacture things all the time without the literal use of hands. We know that just because the roots of the word mean to make by hands doesn’t mean that’s what the word actually means. To say otherwise is to commit an etymological fallacy.
The second fallacy is known as the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy. This is when one illegitimately ascribes to a word the totality of what a word could mean in each individual instance. Let’s look at an example with the following sentence: “The dog ate my homework.” Now when you look at Merriam Webster, “dog” has about 10 different meanings. Some of these are: a domesticated carnivorous banana, a worthless person, a constellation, feet or toes, a hot dog, or an unattractive person. So, did all of that eat your homework or did just one possible meaning of the word eat your homework? Of course, not all of those possible meanings ate your homework! But this is the logic that immersion baptism ignores; immersion baptism illegitimately transfers all possible meanings of a word to each use of that word. Let’s look at this further.
While one meaning of to baptize in the Greek is to immerse, there are numerous other meanings! Other possible meanings are to wash/purify or to have an extraordinary experience (BDAG, s.v. "βαπτίζω"). To read passages about baptism and conclude that just because one possible meaning is to immerse that’s what the word means in every context is to commit the illegitimate totality transfer. It could also mean one of the other meanings other without any reference to the immersion meaning, just like the dog example above. (Also, there are clear instances in Scripture where the word does not mean “immerse” [Mark 7:4; 1 Corinthians 10:1–2; Luke 11:37–38]).
Furthermore, the Bible gives us an example of how the word “baptism” can be a sprinkling! The author of Hebrews points back to the washings [Greek for baptisms] in the Old Testament and how they sprinkled the blood of goats and bulls during those washings (Hebrews 9:9–13). This is a clear example of how baptism cannot always mean to immerse. We know from the Old Testament that people and altars were not immersed in the blood of goats and bulls. Rather, just like the author of Hebrews says, they were sprinkled. (Side note: sprinkle in the Greek is one of the few words that did not take on any other meanings beside sprinkle).
3. The Argument from Covenant Membership – Proponents of believer's baptism may sometimes say that baptism is to be reserved for people part of the covenant community. As Presbyterians, we would agree to this statement... with a different definition of "covenant community." It is typical for someone not in the Presbyterian world to say that the covenant community consists of only those who have professed true faith. In short, this is the view that only true, regenerate Christians are part of the covenant community here on earth. Presbyterians, however, distinguish between the visible and invisible church/covenant community. The invisible church consists of only true and regenerate believers, but the visible church—the covenant community that the world sees—is made up of true believers and those who have falsely professed faith.
The view that the covenant community has both believers and unbelievers within it finds support all throughout Scripture. Peter explains that how in the old covenant community, there were false prophets who among them... people who part of Israel (2 Peter 2:1–3). When Jesus gives the parable of the weeds, he likens the people of God in the world to a field that has both good seed and weeds. The good seeds are true believers and the weeds are unbelievers. Both of these people, Jesus says, remain in the covenant community until the harvest at his second coming (Matthew 13:24–30). Shortly after Pentecost, a man named Ananias and his wife Sapphira—people that had been baptized and professed faith—were judged by God as unbelievers for their sinful actions (Acts 5:1–6). Later in Acts, another false convert named Simon was baptized by Peter, but later, Peter condemned him and said that Simon had no part in the kingdom of God (Acts 8:13–22). Furthermore, we read about unbelievers all throughout the Old Testament who were part of God's covenant community but not true believers (ie. Saul, Ahab, Hananiah, and many more!).
If the Presbyterian view is so frequently supported in Scripture, why do proponents of believer's baptism disagree? The main argument comes from Jeremiah 31:31–34 where God prophesies of the time of the new covenant. The new covenant is going to be a time where God's law is within his people (Jeremiah 31:33). Therefore, the covenant community of God's people will have his law in their hearts. Unbelievers do not have God's law in their hearts. While on the surface this seems to make sense, if this interpretive approach to the passage was carried out all the way, preachers should not be preaching and teachers should not be teaching. The very next verse says, "No longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me" (Jeremiah 31:34). If the reading of Jeremiah 31:33 was talking about this present time, then preachers and teachers of the gospel are violating Scripture because they are preaching and teaching about Jesus. Obviously, this cannot be the case. This view has what is known as an over-realized eschatology. Yes, Jeremiah is talking about a time where God's law will be in the hearts of every single one of his people and there will be no need to teach and preach, but this time has not yet come! This prophecy has not fully come true; we await the second coming of Jesus Christ for the full fulfillment of this prophecy. If you think this time has already come, stop telling people about Jesus!
4. Jesus was baptized by immersion. – In conjunction with the view of immersion baptism is the (likely) fact that Jesus was baptized by immersion. However, to say this proves immersion and/or believer's baptism goes too far. First and foremost, it never says that Jesus was immersed. Jesus was "baptized." Again, this word can mean other things than to immerse! But, one might say, he was baptized in the Jordan! Let me ask you this: if you get in a pool, but you're only ankle deep, are you in the pool? Yes! We are never told just how deep Jesus went into the Jordan. But it says that Jesus "came up out of the water." Yes, this is true, but the accounts never say when this actually occurred. Jesus could've immediately gone out of the water by walking on to the bank of the Jordan—just like how we "come up out of the ocean" by walking back on to the sand. (I don't really view these as plausible arguments; I just think they are funny to point out).
Nonetheless, Jesus was most likely was immersed in the Jordan. However, just because that's what Jesus did, does not mean that's what we have to do today! Jesus observed Passover. Jesus celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles. Jesus was circumcised. Jesus worshiped on Saturday. Jesus did so many things that we don't follow, and there's good reason for it! Just because Jesus does something, does not mean that action is law! Description is not prescription. Let me say that again and put it in bold: description is not prescription.
5. The Language of Burial – One final argument against infant baptism is how Scripture connects baptism to burial, which means that infants cannot get baptized because, well, they cannot practically be buried/immersed. For example, Paul writes, "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" (Romans 6:3–4). He also says a very similar thing in Colossians 2:11–12. Because of these passages, the argument is that immersion baptism, which cannot be done by infants, is required since baptism visually represents being buried and raised with Christ.
Out of all the prior arguments, I find this one the most convincing. However, there is another way to understand these passages: these passages demonstrate that through the covenant sign of baptism, we share in the spiritual benefits (or consequences) of Christ's death and resurrection. The Westminster Confession of Faith is helpful here: "There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation or sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified... that the names and the effects of the one are attributed to the other" (WCF 27.2) In short, the word "baptism" can be used as a synonym for what it points to: faith. Thus, it is through faith that we are buried and raised with Christ. Take the following example: "I'm ready for a ring." What does that statement mean? We all know that means "I'm ready for marriage." How do we know that? The word "marriage" isn't used. We know that because the sign of the ring points to marriage that when the word "ring" is used in that context, we know marriage is meant. As a side note, if you really want to say we are buried and raised with Christ through the actual act of baptism, you have to be ready to defend against baptismal regeneration.
Conclusion
I have defended infant baptism through five arguments while also defending the practice against five common objections. Whatever side of the table you are on, I hope this blog has strengthened your faith and better equipped you to defend your beliefs for the glory of the God.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Evan Potts
