As a reformed presbyterian minister, my job description is simple: Preach, Pray, Pastor. My good friend Zach Byrd would add a fourth “P” which would be: Party.
Functionally, my job description often looks like this: Preach, Pray, Pastor, Party, and Promote Paedo-Baptism.
I minister in Baptist and non-denominational country here in Oklahoma. Paedo-Baptism is often foreign to people. Presbyterians are sometimes seen as odd and sometimes even unbiblical, Roman Catholic, or heretical for baptizing their children. Rightly so, one of the big questions we ask potential ministers in our presbytery is how they would handle certain scenarios of people asking questions about the mode of baptism, recipients of baptism, timing of baptism, and re-baptism.
Oklahoma is not the only state held in “Baptist Captivity”.1 Many reformed presbyterian ministers across the world are regularly dealing with these questions. I consider this encouraging that people at least want to ask. I love, what I like to call, “holy curiosity”. I’d rather be in a humble conversation with people asking good questions than in a culture where it is taken for granted.
Nevertheless, I thought it could be helpful to provide some of the brief arguments I have made for Paedo-Baptism through the years. This is not an exhaustive argument for the entire reason for baptizing children nor is each argument exhausted with its reasons.
Matthew 28:18-20
Often I hear people quote Matthew 28:18-20 and the need to notice the order of the phrases. The argument goes as such: “Jesus said we ought to go. Then we make disciples. Then we baptize them. You can see it clearly here that someone is supposed to become a disciple before they are baptized.”
There are a couple of problems with this argument: 1) If you keep reading these verses you will realize that the Great Commission commandment is not finished after “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. It goes on to say “…teaching them to observe all I have commanded you.” Now, if we want to use the “order argument” then this would implode based on their line of logic. How could someone make a disciple of Jesus before teaching them to observe what Jesus taught? How can someone follow Jesus if they don’t know what He taught? Why would someone be baptized if they didn’t know what it was? The very nature of becoming a disciple is to follow Jesus in His teachings.
2) There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the sentence here. The first command in this sentence is not “go”. In the original Greek language, this is a participle rather than an imperative. It is more accurately to be thought of as “Going therefore…”. In other words, Jesus is assuming that we are all on-the-go whether we go across the street or around the world.2 Grammatically, the first command in the sentence is not “go” but rather “make disciples”. Interestingly, while the main verb is “make disciples” the Greek language will use the next two participles to modify the main verb. In other words, the text is actually showing us what it looks like to make disciples. And that looks like: Baptism and Teaching. It is the classic summary of our philosophy of ministry being “Word and Sacrament”.
3) If we did want to use the “order argument” then we ought to first translate the sentence correctly (as done above) and then use the order. That would appear to be the following: “Wherever we are going, whether across the street or around the world, we are to make disciples. Disciple-making looks like baptizing people and then teaching them to observe all that Christ has commanded them.” Ironically, if the “order argument” is used then baptism comes first which would stand in line with the reformed presbyterian understanding of paedo-baptism. It sounds awfully a lot like applying the covenant sign and seal to children of believers and then raising them up in the faith and teaching them God’s Word (Gen. 17; Deut. 6).The New Testament Debates
These were the three main debates concerning baptism in the New Testament: Is the new covenant sign baptism? Is circumcision obsolete? Are Gentiles to receive this sign?
What you don’t find is arguments around who receives the sign and seal of the covenant. That begs a question: If for over 2,000 years children were considered recipients of the covenant sign and seal, a major societal and cultural way of life for the Israelites, then if children were somehow now not to receive this covenant sign then wouldn’t you want that to be communicated very clearly just like you would the other main three questions above?
Some say this is an argument from silence and should be thrown out. They think that if it is not said explicitly in the New Testament that “you should baptize your infants” then we ought not to do. Let’s be careful with this argument. By this line of reasoning you would not be able to confirm the Trinity because the exact word “Trinity” is not in the New Testament. And if you deny the Trinity you are a heretic.
It is a basic understanding of Scripture: 1) God is God and He is always God (Mal. 3:6). 2) God never changes and therefore when He commands something it is always relevant unless noted otherwise. 3) The New Testament writers assume that this one God saves one people by one Savior purchasing one salvation. They reject the idea that Jesus is God’s “Plan B” or a different God.
Therefore, unless we see God explicitly change the recipients of the covenant sign and seal then we ought not to change the recipients of the covenant sign and seal. Matter of fact, not only do we not see it change to the decreasing of who receives it. We see it only for the increasing of who receives it—Gentiles and women.Water & Blood From Jesus vs Colossians 2
In the Old Covenant, the covenant sign and seal was a bloody sign with circumcision. It signified the need for a blood sacrifice to be in our place to atone for our sins and propitiate God’s wrath in order that we might not die and be cut off from God (see Leviticus 16). God gave the covenant sign of circumcision to Abram to show him that if we come to God by grace through faith in His plan of salvation through a Savior—who has been revealed to be Jesus—then sin will be cut off from us rather than us cut off from God (see Genesis 15 and 17).
In the Old Testament, we see that water is symbolized as cleansing by the Holy Spirit along with the theme of new creation (Ezekiel 36:22-37:28). It is interesting that this is also talked about in the context of prophecying of a New Covenant. It is also interesting that God says He will “sprinkle” clean water on them. This word for “sprinkle” is used in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 9 for sprinkling the altar with blood which signified atonement. But we’ll get to this argument later in the list…
The important part is what we see on the Cross. Jesus, who we know is the true Lamb of God who has come to take away the sins of the world (which sounds a lot like what is referred to with circumcision), is the one on the Cross making atonement for God’s people. Hebrews makes it clear that He is the end of the blood (Hebrews 9-10). And when the death of Jesus on the Cross is confirmed, a spear is thrust into His side and out flows “blood and water” (Jn. 19:34).
So, Jesus is the end of the blood—therefore, circumcision is fulfilled—and He is also the true water cleansing. In Jesus, we see true circumcision (as He is the one cut off from God on the Cross so that our sins can be cut off from us by His atonement) and we see true washing (since He is the one who cleansed us of our sins as His Spirit comes to us and sprinkles us with His redemption).
Colossians 2:11-12 will also point out how true spiritual circumcision and heart baptism happen to those upon union with Christ. The covenant signs and seals have always pointed to this reality of what we have in Christ. Paul very evidently parallels circumcision with baptism here. John Calvin says about this verse, “He expressly declares that we obtain this [spiritual circumcision] by means of baptism, that it may be the more clearly apparent that there is no advantage from circumcision under the reign of Christ…Christ, says he, accomplishes in us spiritual circumcision, not through means of that ancient sign, which was in force under Moses, but by baptism. Baptism, therefore, is a sign of the thing that is presented to us, which while absent was prefigured by circumcision.”3
And, once again, while Paul establishes this argument we don’t see him exclude children as recipients of this covenant sign and seal.Nicodemus & Circumcision
In John 3, when Jesus is talking with Nicodemus about what it means to be born again by the Holy Spirit, we must remember that Nicodemus has already received the covenant sign of circumcision—as any good Pharisee would have. In other words, even though the covenant sign and seal had already been given to Nicodemus, Jesus is telling him that he must look to the spiritual reality which it points to—regeneration by the Holy Spirit as prophesied in Ezekiel 36.
Jesus doesn’t tell Nicodemus that he needs to be circumcised again—which is unfeasible. Jesus also doesn’t tell him that he needs to be baptized for He has not established that as the sign and seal of the New Covenant yet.
Some might say, “But Nicodemus would’ve been baptized after the covenant sign and seal changed.” Yes, he certainly would’ve been. But, Jesus no where tells him that this must always happen after belief. In this conversation, Jesus is not pointing Nicodemus to external water baptism but rather to believe in the reality of which his circumcision points to—the cleansing of sins by the Holy Spirit who applies to us the blood atonement of a Substitute.
Plus, we ought to be very careful about the over-emphasis that can sometimes be put on baptism having to be after conversion for that would bring lots of alarming implications to those of the Old Covenant.The Believing Parent Married To Unbelieving Spouse: What About The Children?
1 Corinthians 7:14 makes a profound statement. “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.” R.C. Sproul has said, “In OT language, the whole family is regarded as being in covenant with God. Even the spouse who refuses to believe comes under the influence of God’s work (v. 16)—much more so the children who are not old enough to profess their faith. Accordingly, Reformed theology has viewed this verse as providing part of the rationale for the baptism of the children of at least one professing believer. Because children of at least one believing parent are set apart, it is right to apply to these children the visible sign and seal of their separation from the world and incorporation into the covenant community.”4
Here is a longer quote from Kim Riddlebarger: “According to Paul, then, the children of such unions between one believer and an unbeliever are regarded as holy. Two important things must be considered in light of this assertion. The first is that Paul’s comments about children being ‘holy’ certainly points us in the direction of the baptism of infants. The children of a marriage with one believing spouse and one unbelieving spouse are not outside the covenant of grace. And if small children are in the covenant, how can we deny to them the sign and seal of that covenant, which is baptism? (cf. Col. 2:11–12). The second consideration is that sanctification must be used here in its sense of ‘set apartness’ or covenantal authority (when the head of the house exercises over those under his care) and not in the sense which so many take it, moral purity. The ‘holy status’ of the believing parent is not negated by the fact that one parent is an unbeliever—therefore, the children of such a union are still members of the covenant, and still eligible for baptism, even if one parent remains an unbeliever.”5Propitiation, Sprinkling, Cleansing, “Nothing But The Blood”
As mentioned above, there is a clear biblical connection between atonement, propitiation, sprinkling of the blood on the altar, and cleansing of our sinful hearts by the blood sacrifice as symbolized in water cleansing us. This is why we continue to sprinkle people with water because it is a visual reminder of the blood sacrifice and how it was brought into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled upon the altar to satisfy the wrath of God.
On the Cross, Jesus entered the true and heavenly Holy of Holies “not made with hands, that is not of this creation” (Heb. 9:11). And in the Heavenly Holy of Holies at the true altar, Jesus sprinkled His blood as the only atonement and propitiation for our sins (Heb. 9:11-10:18).
Therefore: 1) We sprinkle because it is to be a sensible sign and seal that the blood of Christ cleanses us of our sins once for all. And, 2) We sprinkle with water so as to show that just as water washes us clean so the blood of Christ cleanses our hearts.The Timing of Baptism & The Cross
Some make the argument that Baptism is to be at the moment of one’s conversion. There are a couple of problems with this. For one, the overwhelming majority of baptisms never happen at the exact moment one is born again.
But, people will say that it is to happen after regeneration so as to reflect what the Spirit has already done. One again this can be a problem because there have been those who have been baptized externally but have never been born again.
Like baptism, the Cross itself is not tied to its moment in time. I hope not! Because if the Cross was only tied to its moment of time then the only people saved would be the people who were alive at the time Jesus died and rose again—which I guess might make the Revelation “literalists” make sense of the 144,000. But, we know this is not true. The Cross is retroactive as much as it is proactive.
I’ll steal Shai Linne’s example that I once heard. In the Old Testament, people were saved on “Credit” while in the New Testament people are saved on “Debit”. Credit Cards and Debit Cards both use money to make payments. Credit Cards use money later to pay the debt while Debit Cards use money already there. Same money; different timing of pay.
Same with the Cross. It is only Jesus Christ and His atonement that saves a multitude of people. And people have been saved either by looking forward to Jesus or back at Jesus. Same Jesus; same Salvation.
If Christ’s Redemption is not tied to its moment in time then why would the sign of Redemption be tied to its moment in time? And doesn’t Paedo-Baptism actually match up well with salvation itself? As a multitude of people were saved before Jesus came another multitude is saved after Jesus came. In the same way, baptism has been applied to many before they were saved and it has been applied to many after they were saved. Same baptism; same sacramental union. Just different timing to when the spiritual reality and blessings were applied.Progression of the Covenants
Throughout the Old Testament we see God progressively reveal more and more of His plan of redemption. Each covenant of the Old Covenant builds on the previous one. The first promise of the Gospel in Genesis 3:15 is given more light in the Noahic Covenant. The Noahic Covenant is given more light in the Abrahamic Covenant—and so on and so forth. And Christ is the fulfillment of both the Covenant of Works (Rom. 3:21-31; 5:12-21; Gal. 3:10-29) and the Old Covenant of Grace in order to establish the New Covenant of Grace (see 2 Cor. 3:1-18; WCF 7.5-6).
Old Covenant does not mean that its promises and blessings are obsolete for New Covenant believers. It means that they have served their temporary purpose and have now been fulfilled in Christ. Now, in this New Covenant, there is an even greater outpouring of salvation and covenant blessings that is “new”. O. Palmer Robertson says, “This concept of newness implies a break with the past. God shall act to redeem His people in a way unfamiliar to them…Yet the newness of the new covenant must not stand in absolute contradiction to the previous covenants. A factor of continuity must be recognized. Jeremiah does not condemn the old covenant. He condemns Israel for breaking the covenant (Jer. 31:32; cf. Jer. 2:5,13,20,32).”6
Christ’s fulfillment of the Old Covenant of Grace brings all the promises and blessings of that covenant readily upon us through faith in Him. On top of that, there is now in this New Covenant era an even greater dispensation of God’s gracious working of redemption in us and through us by the Holy Spirit as the gospel goes forth. Stephen Myers explains that, “While the new covenant stands in organic continuity with all of God’s previous work in the covenant of grace, the new covenant is undeniably and wonderfully new!” And this affects baptism. “Circumcision was not a sign and seal of another covenant; it also was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, and therefore the way that it functioned has much to tell the church about the way that signs and seals of that same covenant of grace work presently…If the practice of God’s people always had been to administer the sign of the covenant to the children of covenant members, and the prophets had described the new covenant as affecting, in some way, ‘they, their children, and their children’s children, forever’ (Ezek. 37:25), why would the New Testament church have suddenly stopped administering the sign of the new covenant to the children of those who had professed faith in Christ? In the New Testament, there is no evident that they did.”7Based on the covenants building on each other and progressively expanding their revelation of God’s plan of redemption, wouldn’t it be awfully strange if at the time of Jesus there were a significant restraining of who would receive the covenant sign and seal of baptism? Wouldn’t it be even more strange if it did restrain who receives it and then not record that clearly and evidently in its major documents?
Once again, while the Old Covenant sign was not physically applied to females but spiritually applied, the sign of the New Covenant now is physically applied to females—and Gentiles! It would be quite the change of pace to restrict it to only those adults after they have made a profession of faith.Sovereign Grace Pictured, Not First Act of Obedience
Baptism is not someone’s first act of obedience. Technically, faith is (see Romans 3:27).8 Much obedience happens before baptism of those believers who are baptized as adults. Faith is always our first action in the Christian life but even that faith is a gift that is sovereignly and monergistically given by God alone (Eph. 2:1-10). In no way, shape, or form is faith earning salvation.But keeping with the argument, after the initial act of faith we begin to love God and love others even before adult baptism. So, if obedience begins immediately after union with Christ (Jn. 15; Acts 2-3; Phil. 1-2; Gal. 2:16-3:7) and if the argument is that baptism is our first act of obedience then I would consider that very dangerous. That would mean that a conversion is not a conversion until the very moment before baptism. As a result, not only would all who were baptized as a child of the covenant fail to be saved but also all who are baptized as adults would not have been saved until the minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, or even years after they made a genuine profession of faith while awaiting baptism. This would mean we would have to call every supposed conversion and profession of faith “false” until they made the profession the moment before being dunked—and hopefully that profession of faith is genuine or you must be re-baptized.
To the contrary, baptism is the sign and seal of God’s sovereign grace. Baptism happens to you, not because of you. You don’t baptize yourself. Baptism is applied to you. Just as you don’t earn your salvation but it is monergistically and sovereignly applied to you—so with baptism. As baptism happens to you it is a picture of how God sovereignly bestows salvation upon us without our help or contribution (Rom. 3:19-31; 4:1-25; 6:1-11; Gal. 2:16-3:14; Eph. 1:3-14; 2:1-1-22; Phil. 2:11-13; 3:2-9; Col. 2:6-15).
Baptism is not your first act of obedience (even if you did it the very moment after being born again). It is a sign and seal of God’s act of saving you by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Cornelius & Lydia
Sometimes people think we don’t see instances of child baptism in the New Testament. It doesn’t take long until we see it in the Book of Acts. In Acts 2:39, Peter reaffirms the promise of the Old Covenant and applies it to the New Covenant by saying, “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.”
In Acts 10, we see the whole household of the Gentile Cornelius gathered to listen to Peter. And following the sermon and seeing the evidence of the Holy Spirit coming down even on Gentiles, Peter says, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” Then Peter goes on to command them (including the household) to be baptized.
You might say, “Yea, but this looks like the entire household believed and so that would only evidence that they only baptized believers.”
If this is your line of reasoning then Acts 16 is going to trouble you. This time Paul is the one who preaches and a woman named Lydia believed. It says in verse 14b “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.” Notice that it is only said that she (singular) believed. But, how does she respond? “And after she was baptized, and her household as well…” (16:15).
One adult believed. The covenant sign and seal applied to her and her household.Doesn’t Romans 6 and Acts 8 talk about going “down” into the water?
The argument of semantics is another one people use. To summarize what can be found in any search through Greek dictionaries and through Bible software research: It is simply not true that the word for baptism always means to immerse in water. Sometimes it is not even referring to water at all.
One of those instances is in Romans 6. Water is not even mentioned in Romans 6. The mode of baptism is not mentioned here. The reality to which baptism points is what the focus is on. It points to what the Holy Spirit does in us as He applies the blood of Christ’s atoning sacrifice to us. The Holy Spirit unites us to the Christ who died for our sin so that we might die to sin. The Holy Spirit unites us to the Christ who rose in newness of life so that we might receive this life. This death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is symbolized in baptism. It is not an argument used by Paul in this text for the mode of immersion baptism.
Some will say that in Acts 8 we see that the Ethopian Eunuch went down into the water. People will say that this reveals the fact that this is what the mode of baptism ought to be. The problem with this logic is that the text says in Acts 8:38 “and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and [Philip] baptized [the Ethopian Eunuch].” First, any mentioned of “going down into the water” is said of both men but yet only one of the was baptized. Second, nothing is said of dunking or immersing or even how deep that water was.
To my Baptist friends: I say that tongue-in-cheek. I love you and I love Charles Spurgeon. Also, thank you for teaching your people the importance of saying “Amen” during your sermons. I will continue to plunder this from you and teach our Frozen Chosen that they can express some religious affections during preaching.
Shoutout to my phenomenal Missions and Evangelism professor at RTS Jackson Dr. Elias Medeiros. Legend!
John Calvin and John Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 185.
R. C. Sproul, ed., The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (2015 Edition) (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2015), 2025.
Kim Riddlebarger, First Corinthians, ed. Jon D. Payne, The Lectio Continua Expository Commentary on the New Testament (Powder Springs, GA: Tolle Lege Press, 2013), 177–178.
O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1980), 280-281.
Stephen G. Myers, God To Us (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2021), 249, 292, 300.
What I am absolutely not saying is that faith is an act of obedience which merits or earns God’s grace—it would not be grace if we could earn it. Rather, the “obedience of faith” (Rom. 16:26) is an obedience that is wholly given to us by the Holy Spirit. It is monergistic and not synergistic. Yet, as the Christian life continues after the very first millisecond that we are born again, Christians “obey” by continuing to have faith in the gospel. So, based on this reasoning, baptism still isn’t one’s first act of obedience.