If you are in need of a solid, basic web site for your business, church, or organization, check out my web design services at 
Subscribe
My Problem With Infant Baptism
Posted by Brian Thornton on May 6, 2008
Being an amateur reformational credobaptistic theologian, I just want to list some of the things that trouble me about the practice of baptizing infants, also known as Paedo-Baptism.
I have a problem with Paedo-Baptism because…
- It knowingly and willingly brings unregenerate people into the church. While my Paedo brothers and sisters will say that Credo-Baptists do the same thing, we do it unknowingly and certainly unwillingly. The NT talks very strongly against those who would appear to be a believer and are in the church, but in actuality are of the world. If this practice of welcoming the unregenerate into the church were such a desired thing by God, I would expect to see something to that effect in the NT.
- It presumes upon God something that He has not promised. Paedo’s say they baptize their children because they expect God to save them as they say He has promised to do. This is, quite simply, a dangerous presumption to make and, no matter what Paedo’s say to the contrary, makes God out to be a liar when He does not save someone who has been baptized as an infant. I have such a hard time with the idea that God doesn’t fulfill all of His promises. I know Paedo’s will say that the promises are concerning the covenant community, but what does that mean? It makes the covenant community out to be a joke instead of the Bride of Christ.
- This false presumption leads to a false assumption, that the infants who are baptized do not need to be evangelized. Coming from a camp which champions total depravity, this assumption seems so out of place and strange. It is another example of how infant baptism affects so many other areas in problematic ways. My first mission field is my family, my children. Why would I ever assume they are saved and do not need to hear the gospel.
- The only explicit examples we have in Scripture of those being baptized are ones who have first expressed repentance and faith. This one requires no other commentary as it clearly speaks for itself.
- The only command in Scripture we have telling us who to baptize says it is to be those who have first become disciples, which requires repentance and faith prior to the ordinance of baptism.
- The new covenant as described in Jeremiah 31 includes only those who know God, and have had His law written upon their hearts. An unregenerate infant simply does not fit this description.
- While Paedo Baptists say that those baptized as infants possess all the rights and privileges that accompany membership into the church, they deny infants and young children access to the Lord’s Table, when there is no command in Scripture to deny the Table to any member of the new covenant who is in good standing. If Peado’s presume the baptized infant to be regenerated and saved (based upon God’s promise) then why can’t they presume the baptized infant can examine themselves prior to coming to the table?
- It goes contrary to the Regulative Principle
- On this issue, it comes to its conclusions by running the new covenant practice of baptism through the OT practice of circumcision, reversing the truth that the OT is in the NT revealed (the NT interprets the OT).
- It gives the person baptized a false sense of security, especially when the parents consider and treat the prematurely baptized person as though they were a believer, when in fact they very well may not be.
- Paedo Baptism inserts commands and meanings about baptism into OT texts concerning circumcision that just aren’t there.
- When taken to its logical conclusion, Paedo-Baptism is really a covenant of works system and not a covenant of grace. This is evident in that the baptized infant is presumed to be saved and part of the new covenant until such time as they prove themselves to be a covenant keeper or a covenant breaker. This is quite problematic because the new covenant cannot be broken.
- It flattens the new covenant into something that is virtually indistinguishable from the old covenant. While Scripture calls it new and better, Paedo Baptism calls it identical, except that it’s scope is wider. From Scripture, baptism is NOT identical to circumcision, as seen by who is baptized in Scripture and who is circumcised in Scripture.
While there may be more reasons I could list for why I have a problem with Paedo-Baptism, I will conclude this post with the one that I believe is the most convincing, and provides the most serious blow to the doctrine of baptizing unregenerate infants into the church. Here it is…
- THERE IS NO WAY A NEW BELIEVER, COMING TO THE ISSUE OF BAPTISM FOR THE FIRST TIME AND WITH NO OUTSIDE INFLUENCES, WILL EVER CONCLUDE THAT INFANT BAPTISM IS A PRACTICE THAT CAN BE SUPPORTED FROM SCRIPTURE, OR IS COMMANDED BY GOD. SIMPLY PUT, THERE IS NO WAY ONE READS THE BIBLE ALONE AND COMES AWAY AS A PAEDO-BAPTIST, BECAUSE IT IS JUST NOT THERE.
One God in three Persons, the Deity of Christ, The Lord’s Supper, Monergism, Total Depravity, Regeneration before Faith, and Credo-Baptism…all of these are easily seen in Scripture. Paedo-Baptism is a figment of the imagination (well, it is non-existent in Scripture, anyway).
My journey from Arminianism over to Reformational Theology and the doctrines of grace was a rather easy process (what I mean by that is it was easy to see from Scripture alone). Once I began to study the topic of God’s sovereignty for myself and let the word of God speak for itself, it was impossible to ignore that TULIP was the truth. However, NO WHERE in my journey did I ever come across or notice anything even close to anything resembling the practice, theology or necessity of baptizing infants. Why is that? Why, in my hunger to learn as much as I could about this new and incredible truth of who God is and how He works in the salvation of His elect, did I NEVER see Paedo-Baptism anywhere in Scripture? The answer is, because it is not there.
Les Prouty said
Brian I can really appreciate your passion for truth. Obviously you believe the credo view and apparently the paedo view really bothers you greatly. As Sean Hannity often quotes, “Let not your heart be troubled.” We paedos are most likely not going to take over the world and surely are not going to undermine the gospel of grace. At least give us that.
I write as a PCA elder and former SBC pastor. I won’t bore you all with the details, but suffice it to say that I have been on both sides of this debate. I’ve studied it from all angles and have been taught both sides in seminary (Mid America Baptist and Covenant Seminary). That doesn’t mean I have the corner on the true truth, but it does mean that I am not shooting from the hip.
Much ink (or bandwidth these days) has been spilt on this issue. I will not try to rehash it here. A good article may be found at http://www.wscal.edu/clark/baptism.php
Dr. Clark ably presents a solid defense of paedo baptism there.
But I do have couple of comments. You cited 13 concerns. I will be brief.
1.You assume that infants cannot be regenerate. You don’t know that. You are obviously a monergist, so you well know that God can regenerate youngsters. To presume He will not goes too far.
2.God certainly does keep all His promises. Read Genesis 17 for the promise related to this issue. We don’t presume on God. We simply take Him at His promise. Don’t forget verse 9. In my understanding, there is no reason to withhold the covenant sign to children trusting God for the salvation of the child (monergism). Our task as parents is to nurture them in the faith and teach them of God’s promise.
3.I don’t assume anyone is saved. I nurture my children in the faith and tell them of God’s wonderful promise to save sinners (which we all are).
4.“The only explicit examples we have in Scripture of those being baptized are ones who have first expressed repentance and faith. This one requires no other commentary as it clearly speaks for itself.” That would be expected in Acts’ missionary endeavors. Also, you are no doubt familiar with the household baptisms in Acts. Credos are on no more solid ground to assume there are no children present that paedos are that there ARE children present. We are both operating on assumptions where the scripture is silent. Further, as I said on another comment, to demand an actual example is to demand too much. There are no examples of females taking communion as well!
5.See last line above. No command for females to take communion as well as no example.
6.As to Jer 31, see Dt. 30:1-10.
7.The Lord’s Table issue is debatable among paedos. But do know that I do not presume infants to be regenerated when baptized, as I think most paedos will agree. We are trusting God to fulfill His promise to His elect, whom only He knows.
8.RPW. What do you mean as being contrary?
9.The OT and the NT are not in opposition here. There is wonderful continuity to place the sign of God’s covenant promise on our children as well as on those who profess faith in Christ who have never had the sign.
10.But they very well might be regenerate. There is no false sense of security here. We treat them as recipients of God’s promise (Acts 2).
11.No, we don’t insert anything. We let the continuity of God’s promise speak for itself.
12.I know you are passionate about the credo view, but the works comment crosses a line of good debate, dear brother. Surely you are not saying RC Sproul, whom you have learned from, believes in works righteousness.
13.See Jeremiah 31. We believe in the new covenant. It surely cannot be broken because Jer. 31 is telling us that it is new and better because it is all about Christ and His grace!
Finally, and sorry for the length, you concluding paragraph is unsupportable. “The most serious blow” to paedo baptism assumes that 1. it has never happened (it has and I have seen it) and 2. that God by His Spirit cannot bring people to that position by reading His word and 3. that centuries of believers have been duped by something that is a “figment of their imagination.”
Finally finally, I have very close friends who are credo and we labor in ministry together recognizing our differences on baptism. My blog partner Randy is a dear brother and a confirmed credo Baptist. And, no I am not going to list all the reasons why I am not a credo. Wouldn’t be helpful.
Blessings brother.
Les Prouty
Brian Thornton said
Hi Les,
Thanks for your comments. I don’t want to respond to each of your remarks, as I believe I have spilled enough keys on the keyboard already. Please allow me a few short remarks, though. I apologize if they come across as short, but I want to get straight to the point.
-Some of your replies seem to contradict one another. You assert that the infants might be regenerate (#1, #10), and then you say you do not presume they are (#7). Which is it? Do you not presume them to be in the new covenant? Are not those in the new covenant presumed to be regenerate? How can you say you do not presume them to be regenerate when you give them entrance into the church and treat them as if they are regenerate until such time as they affirm that presumption or prove the opposite? It seems that when pressed on this issue, Paedos want to ride the fence, and ride it hard.
-You talk about acting upon God’s promises concerning these infants being baptized, and then you discount the result if God doesn’t keep His promise concerning them. Pardon the accusation, but that comes across as duplicitous (this accusation is not directed at you personally, but all Paedos who say they presume upon the promises of God concerning their children). If you don’t presume on God’s promises concerning these infants, then whose promises are you presuming upon? You say God keeps ALL His promises…what EXACTLY has He promised concerning these infants?
-Concerning your remark that I have crossed the line concerning my remark about a covenant of works…do you or do you not consider the infant to be a member of the new covenant until such time as they prove to be a covenant keeper or covenant breaker? I was not talking about works righteousness, but pointing out that the language many Paedos use strongly indicates that they believe the new covenant can be broken by man, which yourself have asserted that it cannot be.
FINALLY, FINALLY for me…
If no other questions are answered, I would like for someone to address this one…
What are the ramifications to me and my wife (both believers) and my children since we did not baptize them as infants? Lay it out…don;t be PC here…I really want to know how my not baptizing my children will effect them, and us.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, Les. I must say I appreciate both your tone and spirit in your comments.
SDG,
Brian
Les Prouty said
Brian thanks for your kind reply to my comments. If I have been unclear (which is very likely) I apologize. I am out of town on business and only have a few minutes this am.
1. Yes, infants “might be regenerate.” Any and all in the community of God’s people, the visible church, might be regenerate. I cannot see the heart. Of course we do assume that people professing faith in Christ are regenerate–and most probably are. But certainly not all are. With infants, all I was trying to say is that we don’t presume to know whether infants are or are not regenerate. They might be. Nevertheless, they are considered part of the community of faith (as in the OT with Abraham and his household) and now in the earthly expression in the NT the church. The new covenant of course cannot be broken–that is via Christ all the requirements of God are fulfilled perfectly. But we should not confuse the visible part of the new covenant community with the invisible (the truly elect). In other words, when a person professes faith in Christ in a credo church and is baptized he is considered part of the new covenant community of faith, as he should be. If he falls away to never return that does not make God out a liar. He (the one falling away) was never a true believer. God did not fail to keep His promises. Same with a child.
2. I really don’t think we are being duplicitous. Again, much ink has been spilled, but we believe that as in Abraham’s day, the family focus is important. God is pleased to work through families to bring His elect to professing the faith. As with Abraham, the sign is placed on the family members trusting God and using His means to nurture the things of God in our children. We urge them to believe the promise of God that He saves each one of us by His grace alone. He has promised to be a God to me and my children and He sees them differently than those not in a covenant family (1 Cor. 7–holy. Another topic itself). God does indeed keep all His promises and all His elect will surely be born again.
3. Let me say again that the new covenant person, born again, cannot break that. The point of Christ’s work is that He fulfills all the requirements and gives the new heart. I consider the children to be visible members of the new covenant community and they are admitted to the Lord’s Table just like everyone else—via a profession of faith at some point such that they can make that profession. Communicant members can be barred from the table as well if they betray that profession. This barring applies to anyone of any age—adults who have been immersed like I have.
3. A to you and your wife and the children, all credos I know nurture their children the same as we paedos do—scripture, prayer, etc. Not baptizing them as infants is not the end of the world. In fact, we have folks in our PCA church who have credo backgrounds and they choose to not have their children baptized as infants and life goes on and they nurture them same as we do. We consider it irregular but not worthy of discipline. Mostly we paedos think that credos who choose that route in out PCA church are missing a wonderful picture of God’s grace for their children but their children must still profess faith in Christ just as mine have (I have five children ranging from 13 up to 25).
Got to get out on the road, but thanks again for the discussion. Maybe I was a little clearer but …oh well. Again, this is not a new debate and we will probably not settle it here.
Les
Brian Thornton said
Thanks once again for taking the time to explain your position, Les. I will let your remarks be the last word, except for two thoughts by me on a couple of things you said.
One…
He has promised to be a God to me and my children
God does indeed keep all His promises
I hope you can at least see where Credos are coming from when they say this sounds contradictory. Our thinking goes something like this, “IF God has promised to be a God to me AND my children, and God DOES indeed keep all His promises, then God WILL be a God to my children, and my children WILL be saved.” To someone like me, if every single child is not saved to whom this promise has supposedly been made (according to Paedos), then that seems to make God out to be a liar, or at least a promise breaker in those instances when He in fact turns out NOT to be the God of some of those children that He promised to be a God to. Does that make sense?
Two…
when a person professes faith in Christ in a credo church and is baptized he is considered part of the new covenant community of faith, as he should be. If he falls away to never return that does not make God out a liar. He (the one falling away) was never a true believer. God did not fail to keep His promises.
I don’t think the two examples (unwitting infant being baptized vs. a professing person being baptized) are the same and are able to be equally compared. In one instance, others are presuming upon the faith of a person (the infant), and in the other instance, the person himself is presuming upon his own faith and is being obedient to the command of God to be baptized. The person who falls away after professing makes his own self out to be a liar, while the person baptized as an infant (because of some perceived promise by God to save this person) who falls away never actually fell away, because they never professed faith in the first place. Again, one example has others taking an action (on behalf of another) based upon a promise by God, and the other example has someone being obedient to the direct command in Scripture. God is not made out to be a liar in the case of a person falling away who once professed because there was never any supposed promise to save that person in the first place, as Paedos claim exists for their children.
I hope that helps you see where I and other Credos may be coming from with respect to this whole presuming upon the promises of God thing.
Again, thanks for your comments, and you are welcomed here anytime.
Brian
Arthur Sido said
Brian, a very thorough post. Very gracious in tone and yet firm in position. Well done laying out briefly the myraid of problems of the paedo position. Despite arguments to the contrary, the Biblical record clearly demonstrates the credo position, both by command and example, so the burden to prove otherwise falls to the paedo which is a difficult task given the lack of directive to baptize infants anywhere in the New Testament.
Les, I would agree with Brian that it is impossible for an infant to be regenerate, or at the very least demonstrate any sign of being regenerate. Certainly every elect person started out as an infant, but someone who is elect is indistinguishable from someone who is not as an infant. All people who are regenerate are elect, but at a given stage not every elect person is regenerate. I am counted among the elect by the merciful and sovereign grace of God, but was not regenerate or born-again until my late 20’s.
The whole proposition is backwards. Instead of assuming that every person is unregenerate and in need of hearing the Gospel, paedo’s assume that some people (i.e. their children) are regenerate until they prove otherwise. That seems to fly in the face of both logic and the Gospel.
Having said that, Les your comments are about as clear and gracious as any I have read in recent days, and stand as a pleasant contrast to some comments made by others in this venue and others.
Alexander M Jordan said
Brian,
As someone who has become a reformed theologian myself in the past few years, the issue of infant baptism has been a troubling one. Many teachers I otherwise respect greatly in their teaching/thinking on other issues hold a paedo position on baptism (which I intuitively find to be false). Now without yet having personally thoroughly studied the issue (as you seem to have done), I strongly lean towards the credo position, which seems more harmonious with other reformed teaching (e.g., no actions–including of course being baptized as an infant– can make us regenerate or even predispose us towards ever being regenerate– regeneration is entirely by the grace of God). It seems to me that the practice of baptizing infants makes no sense when one considers that baptism is supposed to signify that the person being baptized is already a regenerated, new creature, and that in reformed thinking such a baptism does not and cannot guarantee salvation for the infant.
Infants are sinners– whether they can ever be regenerate as infants, I don’t know. I wouldn’t think so, since we know someone is regenerated by the evidence that they confess Christ and place their faith in Him as they repent of their sins, and they persevere in that profession of faith. Of course, some infants may be elect. But given that the only definite thing we know of all infants is that he or she is a sinner, why baptize them? What does it signify? To baptize an unregenerate person who happens to be a member of your household does not obligate God to save them, unless we think something this baptism confers some kind of salvific privileges to the child –again this seems in contradiction to reformed principles regarding salvation. Can we ever presume that the one baptized as an infant is going to be become regenerate/saved? I don’t think we can presume anything about the future.
Now I guess the paedo baptist is not saying that exactly– maybe they are not saying that infant baptism guarantees that the person will be saved or regenerated. A verse that seems to speak to this issue is 1 Corinthians 7:14, “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” In this verse, somehow the children of a believer– even when the spouse is an unbeliever– are being called “holy”. Although this verse does not speak about infant baptism, it does lend some credence to the paedo view– for it seems that in God’s eyes the children of believers are being viewed as holy. But, what does this mean exactly? Does it imply that such children have covenant privileges that are the same as their believing parents? That really doesn’t seem possible– since they are only two types of people in this world– unregenerate and regenerate, the latter only being the ones who have been called of God and are being preserved by Him. Do we know for certain that the children of believers are regenerated, and is that why they are being called holy here? In any case, the practice of infant baptism is not in view here, but I think this verse is perhaps offers some support with the paedo thinking. So I’m challenged by the meaning of this verse, but in general the paedo position does not seem in harmony with reformed principles of regeneration/salvation.
Thanks a lot for this article which will be a good starting point for further studies.
Les Prouty said
Brian etal, I have posted on the new covenant and baptism over at my blog. I would love your reactions.
http://reformationfaithtoday.com/2008/05/08/infant-baptism-in-the-new-covenant/
Todd Lambert said
Brian Thorton,
EXCELLENT ARTICLE!! No one can write a 2.5 page article any better on the matter. If I could have a 200 page book on the matter, I would want your article, great job. I share the same concern, but my comments always rambled in a confusing matter, your article is well-worded. Thanks. I just stumbled on your blog today by a friend who copied your post. I am sure to subcribe now.
todd lambert
Brian Thornton said
Les, Thanks for the heads up on the article. I will definitely check it out. My days get busier the closer we get to the weekends (due to my “day job”), but I will try to read it as soon as I can.
Thanks again for your willingness to actually talk about the issue at hand, and for the way you handle your position.
Todd,
Thanks for stopping by and for the encouraging words. I hope to see you back again.
danny said
Hey, brother, I just wanted to briefly comment on your bullet point list on infant baptism.
1) “It knowingly and willingly brings unregenerate people into the church.” You seem to assert that you KNOW who the unregenerate are. Now, I’m not saying I presume/assume my child is elect, but they COULD be, even though they haven’t outwardly express faith. Check out this interesting link by John Piper (a Baptist). http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/AskPastorJohn/ByTopic/116/2563_Should_children_be_taught_to_pray_even_if_they_havent_professed_faith/
Also, consider your 1689 LBC 10:3
Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; WHO WORKETH WHEN, AND WHERE, AND HOW he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
2) Refer to Les’ comment
Baptism and Lord’s supper our instituted in the NT. The regulative principle does not explicitly say, WHO. Otherwise, in order to be consistent, Scripture no where makes mention of women partaking of the Lord’s supper, therefore, women MUST be excluded.
3) Refer to Les’ comment
4) I might add also that there was not specific repentance and faith with each of the household members baptized in the case of Lydia’s household and the Jailor’s household. By the way, if everyone believed in Lydia’s household, we did she say, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord” and not “If you consider us”?
5) Refer to Les’ comment. I might also add, is a disciple always considered one who has first repented and put faith in Christ? How does John 6:66 play into this?
6) Refer to Les’ comment
7) Refer to Les’ comment (we aren’t presuming or assuming their election). I might also add, 1 Corinthians 11:28: “Let a man examine himself”. Baptism is passive (be baptized), Lord’s supper active (examine, partake, etc.). Baptism points to the covenant sign and promise, Lord’s supper points to our continual fellowship in partaking of Christ’s death and our union with Him in His death.
9) Is Paul guilty when he grammatically links the two in Colossians 2:12?
10) This has been covered earlier
11) Refer to Col. 2:12
12) I think that’s overstepping it a bit. A covenant always has promises, signs, and stipulations (and judgment if you don’t meet them). Look at Hebrews 10 (God will judge His people)
13) I wouldn’t say that it is being flattened. It is expanding. Why is the NC better than the Old? Because the types and shadows of the Old are fulfilled in Christ. Hebrews 8 needs to be read in the context of Hebrews 4:14 to the end of chapter 10. The focus is on Christ’s priesthood and His fulfillment of the types and shadows of the Levitcal priesthood.
I find your concluding comment a bit troubling:
“THERE IS NO WAY A NEW BELIEVER, COMING TO THE ISSUE OF BAPTISM FOR THE FIRST TIME AND WITH NO OUTSIDE INFLUENCES, WILL EVER CONCLUDE THAT INFANT BAPTISM IS A PRACTICE THAT CAN BE SUPPORTED FROM SCRIPTURE.”
Everyone is conditioned by their culture to some degree. Sure, if a new believer who lives in America (which prides itself in individualism) and starts first with the NT, I’m pretty sure they will wind up baptistic. But they wind up with a backwards biblical theology.
BUT, if we are talking about a 1st century Jew who is deeply steeped in the OT and this has been going on for over 2,100 years, I would argue that they would end up on the opposite issue of the coin.
Take care, brother,
Danny
danny said
I’m not sure how the smiley face got there, haha!
danny said
Oh, the smiley face was meant to be point # 8.
Albert Medina said
Hi Brother Brian,
I am struggling with this issue as well. So I understand where you are coming from. But after examining the evidence presented by both sides, I find myself more comfortable with the historic Reformed paedobaptist view. I believe that the comments by our paedobaptist brethren have rightly addressed the concerns you raised in this post.
Like Brother Danny, I find your concluding comment very troubling.
“THERE IS NO WAY A NEW BELIEVER, COMING TO THE ISSUE OF BAPTISM FOR THE FIRST TIME AND WITH NO OUTSIDE INFLUENCES, WILL EVER CONCLUDE THAT INFANT BAPTISM IS A PRACTICE THAT CAN BE SUPPORTED FROM SCRIPTURE.”
Why do I find this troubling? This is precisely the same argument used by cults in denying the Trinity. They cannot believe in the Trinity, they say, because it isn’t in Scripture. How about Arminians? On what basis do they reject the doctrine of particular redemption? They think it is not taught in Scripture. The point is that no one comes to Scripture apart from certain presuppositions that are in one way or another conditioned by the prevailing culture in which he was raised.
I believe in the covenantal infant baptism because it does justice to ALL of Scripture. It presents a coherent understanding of the biblical covenants, of God’s people, and the covenant signs, and locates discontinuity where it should be found. When a Reformed paedobaptist reads Jesus’s attitude toward children, the examples of household salvation and baptisms, and the other covenantal themes found in the NT, he understands and interprets them with the OT as the backdrop, taking into account the beliefs and practices of the the early Christians who were mostly Jews initially.
Thanks for this post.
Blessings,
Albert
arthursido said
Albert, the difference is that with the Trinity, there is not a clear, specific definition of God that contradicts it. The same thing with particular redemption. The Bible does not teach by command or example that all are saved without exception. The Bible DOES teach, by explicit command and example, that the proper recipients of baptism are those who have confessed faith. It is left to the paedobaptist to ignore the command and example and appeal to an unspoken inference.