Infant Baptism: Answers to Common Objections

On the heals of yes­ter­day’s entry, we can now move on to the next por­tion of the mem­ber­ship class out­line from which I’m working.

This is a very sim­ple por­tion of the out­line, list­ing five objec­tions. I did­n’t take notes, so I’ll be pro­vid­ing the answers as best as I can recall them. I apol­o­gize in advance for what­ev­er headache I may cause you! 

The New Tes­ta­ment does not com­mand infant baptism!

You’re right, it does­n’t. How­ev­er, it also nev­er pre­cludes the practice.

Remem­ber that the major­i­ty of the first Chris­tians were Jews. An impor­tant part of their cul­ture involved the cir­cum­ci­sion of their house­holds, infants includ­ed. They were accus­tomed to apply­ing a sign of faith to their infants, and it is high­ly unlike­ly that prac­tice would have dis­ap­peared with any speed as the Jews were con­vert­ing to Christ. Rather, we would expect them to have applied a sign of faith to their house­holds just as they did with cir­cum­ci­sion. We saw yes­ter­day that bap­tism replaced cir­cum­ci­sion as God’s appoint­ed sign of the faith, and so that would be what these con­verts would be apply­ing to their house­holds — infants included.

In fact, that infant bap­tism isn’t addressed at all in the Scrip­tures is a great argu­ment in its favor. If it was a big deal that these con­vert­ed Jews were apply­ing a sign of their new faith in Jesus Christ to their infants, why was it nev­er addressed? The prac­tice is sim­ply tak­en for granted!

Also, it must be point­ed out that the objec­tion is a log­i­cal objec­tion to itself and thus is made null: If your basis for not doing some­thing is that Scrip­ture nev­er com­mand­ed it, could it not also be argued that one should bap­tize infants because the Scrip­tures nev­er com­mand­ed not to do it?

The New Tes­ta­ment records no instances of infant baptism!

That line of rea­son­ing can be used against many things, sev­er­al of which I bet your church makes ample use of: choirs, pul­pits, offer­ing plates, ush­ers, bap­tis­ter­ies, church sec­re­taries, church nurs­eries, Sun­day school, mis­sions coun­sels, hym­nals, steeples, mid­week ser­vices, youth out­ings, mul­ti­me­dia pre­sen­ta­tions, and so very much more. Do you real­ly want to stand against infant bap­tism sim­ply because no instance of it is record­ed in Scripture?

As I said above, it is very like­ly assumed that infants were baptized.

Indeed, twice in Acts we have exam­ples of entire house­holds being bap­tized: Lydi­a’s and the jail­ers, both in Acts 16. Com­men­ta­tors, such as John Gill, claim that to believe infants were involved is to make too big a leap of faith; how­ev­er, read­ing such com­men­tary it is rather clear that sim­i­lar leaps in log­ic are being made.

Again, what would have been the prac­tice? It was cus­tom to apply a sign of faith to infants. They were nev­er told to stop doing that.

A child can­not pro­fess faith, so he should not be baptized!

That’s inter­est­ing; why then do we see infants being cir­cum­cised in the Old Tes­ta­ment? Cir­cum­ci­sion was done as an obe­di­ent act of faith, but can infants exer­cise faith? Of course not, yet still they had the sign applied to them. Indeed, many cir­cum­cised Jews would grow up with an “uncir­cum­cised heart” and die with­out faith, lost in their sin. Cer­tain­ly, the same would be true of infants who are baptized.

Sim­ply, to claim the “can­not exer­cise faith” argu­ment” is to direct­ly oppose God’s com­mands under the Abra­ham­ic Covenant to cir­cum­cise infants. Both are mat­ters of obe­di­ence, not faith! Tru­ly, an obe­di­ent Jew is a cir­cum­cised Jew; yet it is per­formed on infants as well.

It is impos­si­ble to oppose infant bap­tism then with­out also oppos­ing cir­cum­ci­sion. Fur­ther dif­fi­cul­ty is intro­duced when we recall that bap­tism is the direct replace­ment of circumcision.

Roman Catholics believe bap­tism saves a child. So we should not do what they do!

This objec­tion bor­ders on the ridicu­lous. To extend the same log­ic, the Mor­mons prac­tice bap­tism for the dead, so should we not bap­tize? The Roman Catholics believe that the ele­ments of the Mass become the very sub­stance of Jesus Christ, so should we eschew the Lord’s sup­per as a result?

Just because the Roman Catholics or oth­er pseudochris­t­ian cults cor­rupt bib­li­cal prac­tices does not mean we should aban­don the pure prac­tices. Indeed, it makes it ever more impor­tant that we do embrace them.

Also, in dis­cus­sion infant bap­tism, at least from a Pres­by­ter­ian point of view, it must be empha­size that bap­tism is in no way effi­ca­cious for sal­va­tion — a bap­tized infant is an unsaved infant, in need of faith in Jesus Christ just as any­one would be.

There is no ben­e­fit in bap­tiz­ing a child!

What was the (reli­gious, not med­i­c­i­nal) ben­e­fit of cir­cum­cis­ing an infant? The same ben­e­fits exist with bap­tiz­ing an infant.

Bap­tism is a priv­i­lege, just as cir­cum­ci­sion was. Both acts iden­ti­fy the per­son out­ward­ly as one of Abra­ham’s off­spring. The empha­sis has always been on the inward, cer­tain­ly — cir­cum­ci­sion did­n’t make a Jew saved any more than bap­tism makes an infant saved — but it does iden­ti­fy the infant as a mem­ber of a group of oth­ers who are liv­ing for God. To bap­tize an infant is to pro­claim for all present, “This is a Chris­tian’s child!”

And in that regard, it is also a pledge, a pledge that the child will be reared in a man­ner con­sis­tent with the Scrip­tures. “This is a Chris­tian’s child, and he is going to be raised in the ways of the Lord!” Just as cir­cum­ci­sion was the first step in an infants’ being raised in light of the Abra­ham­ic Covenant (and sub­se­quent­ly the Mosa­ic Covenant), so is bap­tism a first step.

It could be argued that peo­ple in the New Tes­ta­ment were only bap­tized after they believed. To that, I say “Duh!” Why would any­one be bap­tized if they weren’t a part of the church­es? These were all new­com­ers to Chris­tian­i­ty, and it makes sense that when they were saved, they would sub­se­quent­ly be bap­tized. They then would have their chil­dren bap­tized, just as they would have had their chil­dren cir­cum­cised if they had just con­vert­ed to Judaism.

Again, infant bap­tism only makes sense when view­ing the Scrip­tures from a covenan­tal per­spec­tive. The uni­ty of the Tes­ta­ments can­not be ignored, espe­cial­ly when Paul makes it ever so clear, as we saw yes­ter­day, that bap­tism is the cir­cum­ci­sion of this age.

I may still do a part three, on the var­i­ous modes of bap­tism, but I’m not for sure. Stay tuned!

11 thoughts on “Infant Baptism: Answers to Common Objections”

  1. very inter­est­ing arti­cle. have no time to say a whole pile of Glen ram­bling, but I noticed some of the argu­ments raised against Infant Bap­tism are sim­i­lar to argu­ments against The prac­tise or remem­ber­ing Christ’s birth around Christmas.

    Also how does an Old Tes­ta­ment prac­tise of Cir­cum­ci­sion under the law, relate to an infant being baptized?

    Also was­n’t cir­cum­ci­sion insti­gat­ed as one rea­son being because the child was a Jew? What are the clear under­stand­ings of bap­tism in the New Tes­ta­ment, why was it per­formed, and what from clear teach­ing had to come first?

    A very inter­est­ing top­ic that’s for sure


  2. The Old Tes­ta­ment prac­tice of cir­cum­ci­sion was less relat­ed to the Law and more relat­ed to the Abra­ham­ic Covenant. This covenant is direct­ly applic­a­ble to Chris­tians, for we are more chil­dren of Abra­ham (and thus heirs accord­ing to those promis­es) than any cir­cum­cised yet unbe­liev­ing Jews.

    Gen­e­sis 17:12 estab­lish­es that heirs of the promise were to cir­cum­cise — or apply a sign of their faith — to their chil­dren. That act alone does­n’t make them true heirs any­more than bap­tiz­ing infants would make them saved. In fact, Gala­tians 3:29 estab­lish­es that those who are in Christ are “Abra­ham’s seed.”

    And Colos­sians 2:11–12 estab­lish that bap­tism is the New Tes­ta­ment replace­ment of circumcision.

    Putting it all togeth­er, infants should be bap­tized because of the covenant promis­es made to Abra­ham, that new­borns ought to be “induct­ed” into the covenant by an out­ward act — cir­cum­ci­sion then, bap­tism now — but that out­ward acts alone can­not save. Only those who are “in Christ” will inher­it the promises.

  3. “The New Tes­ta­ment records no instances of infant baptism!

    That line of rea­son­ing can be used against many things, sev­er­al of which I bet your church makes ample use of: choirs, pul­pits, offer­ing plates, ush­ers, bap­tis­ter­ies, church sec­re­taries, church nurs­eries, Sun­day school, mis­sions coun­sels, hym­nals, steeples, mid­week ser­vices, youth out­ings, mul­ti­me­dia pre­sen­ta­tions, and so very much more.”

    It seems to me that in the past you have writ­ten against the prac­tice of most of that list. Specif­i­cal­ly because there is no scrip­tur­al sup­port for them.

    Big changes afoot.

  4. Per­haps, but not in that regard. I still whole­heart­ed­ly believe in the suf­fi­cien­cy of Scrip­ture to describe wor­ship for us. As men­tioned yes­ter­day, I still haven’t accept­ed the prac­tice of infant bap­tism; the posts about them have been made for the pur­pose of con­ver­sa­tion, though per­haps with me play­ing the role of “pae­dobap­tist advo­cate” a bit.

    As such, I was sim­ply point­ing out where the log­ic of the objec­tion “It’s not com­mand­ed in the Bible!” will get peo­ple. If they do not prac­tice that prin­ci­ple in so many oth­er areas of wor­ship and prac­tice, upon what do they stand if they prac­tice it only the area of paedobaptism?

    [pae­dobap­tist advo­cate] How­ev­er, even if infant bap­tism is not com­mand­ed in the New Tes­ta­ment explic­it­ly, the argu­ment for it based upon Covenan­talism is provoca­tive. [/pa]

  5. The one prob­lem I have about say­ing that cir­cum­ci­sion and bap­tism are syn­ony­mous: One was under the Old Covenant and the oth­er under the New Covenant. The New was dif­fer­ent from the Old, so would­n’t it fol­low suit that the sign and seal of that Covenant would change?

    Also, cir­cum­ci­sion was only used on males. How was the female sup­posed to show her sign and seal, see­ing as she did­n’t have the “prop­er equip­ment”? (I sup­pose I show my igno­rance in such a ques­tion, but it would be more wise to ask an igno­rant ques­tion to rest in qui­et idiocity).

    For the “house­hold” argu­ment, the prob­lem I have is that we “assume” there were chil­dren. Now, it is fea­si­ble that there were chil­dren, but it’s still just an assumption.

    Either way, I am still very igno­rant on the sub­ject. Like I said in Part 1, how­ev­er, I think it should be an indi­vid­ual church issue, and nei­ther should judge the oth­er for its practices.

  6. Justin, in all hon­esty, the “house­hold argu­ment” isn’t a good one. I shared it because I was shar­ing my notes and that’s what the notes said. The pas­sages which men­tion house­holds also men­tion — in every case, as far as I can recall — that the house­hold like­wise believed. In those cer­tain instances, entire house­holds were elect­ed and enabled to believe, and so they were bap­tized, every mem­ber of the house.

    As for the ques­tion regard­ing women & the sign of faith regard­ing cir­cum­ci­sion… In times past, men were rep­re­sen­ta­tive of their fam­i­lies. If the “man of the house” was a Jew, that house­hold was Jew­ish, with­out ques­tion. That’s just an idea and isn’t at all based on exe­ge­sis, so the actu­al answer might be com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent. :P How­ev­er, in Christ we find that all are on equal spir­i­tu­al foot­ing — there is no Jew or Gen­tile, Greek or bar­bar­ian, male or female, mas­ter or ser­vant — so it makes sense that the sign of the Chris­t­ian faith would be one that is acces­si­ble to all.

    Regard­ing the Old & New Covenants, how­ev­er, keep in mind that the “Old Covenant” is root­ed in nation­al Israel. Hebrews 8 makes it clear that the Old Covenant was estab­lished at the com­ing out of Egypt, with Moses & the Law. The New Covenant, in being “new,” super­sedes the Old Covenant, which is ready to “van­ish away” (Hebrews 8:13).

    I always go back to when my Bap­tist roots are chal­lenged, just to go back over the mate­r­i­al that once served as my pri­ma­ry study mate­r­i­al in help­ing me learn the Scrip­tures. And David Cloud (of that web­site) has put forth one major rea­son (along with numer­ous oth­ers) why the circumcision/baptism com­par­i­son is erro­neous: we are not under the Law, and he cit­ed most of Gala­tians 3 in stat­ing that. [Source]

    To which I say, “Amen!” How­ev­er, we can­not stop with the Law/Grace com­par­isons of Gala­tians 3 and leave it at that. Indeed, that same chap­ter ends in this manner:

    “There is nei­ther Jew nor Greek, there is nei­ther slave nor free man, there is nei­ther male nor female; for you area all one in Christ Jesus” (v.28). The Law was for Israel, not for the Gen­tiles (Greeks includ­ed). It makes sense that if such nation­al dis­tinc­tions were done away with, so would the Law “fade” (as Hebrews puts it).

    Still, the chap­ter does not end there. We are all one in Christ Jesus… “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abra­ham’s off­spring, heirs accord­ing to promise” (v.29).

    Right there, Paul takes us back many hun­dreds of years before the Law was insti­tut­ed. He takes us back to — not the begin­ning of the nation of Israel — the promise that through Abra­ham the whole world would be blessed. That promise — that covenant — is foun­da­tion­al to the com­ing of Mes­si­ah, to God’s elec­tion of peo­ple from all nations & tongues! Gen­e­sis 17 pre­cedes the “Old Covenant” of the Law; it pre­cedes Israel completely!

    And that covenant of so long ago, made with Abra­ham, was made not only between God & Abra­ham, but to Abra­ham’s descen­dants as well. Accord­ing to the New Tes­ta­ment, that includes us.

  7. “And that covenant of so long ago, made with Abra­ham, was made not only between God & Abra­ham, but to Abraham’s descen­dants as well. Accord­ing to the New Tes­ta­ment, that includes us.”


    PS: Rick, I added a new post in the await­ing posts, and I was won­der­ing if you could get that one up real soon. I like it and would like every­one else to read it. But, if you don’t have the time, I under­stand. Thanks!

  8. Inter­est­ing arti­cle but after read­ing var­i­ous pas­sages I don’t know how you can rela­gate bap­tism as a sign. One pas­sage that I am sure you know states “he that believes and is bap­tized will be saved. Also 1 Peter 3:21 states that “bap­tism doth now save us”. Both of these pas­sages posi­tion bap­tism in a far more mirac­u­lous text than as a pro­claima­tion to oth­er believ­ers present.

  9. It is entire­ly pos­si­ble that the bap­tism in those two pas­sages is the bap­tism of the Holy Spir­it which accom­pa­nies the new birth.

    That would fit with the act of cir­cum­ci­sion under the Old Covenant. Cir­cum­cis­ing infants did not save them, but when they were old enough to have faith and be cir­cum­cised in their hearts, they were saved.

    Bap­tism being the “new cir­cum­ci­sion,” so to speak, we would expect to find the same physical/spiritual sense about it, which we do.

    Water bap­tism cer­tain­ly isn’t nec­es­sary for sal­va­tion (there’s a slew of peo­ple in Hebrews 11, not to men­tion the pen­i­tent thief on the cross next to Jesus, that were saved by faith alone with­out men­tion phys­i­cal rites), but there def­i­nite­ly is a greater spir­i­tu­al mir­a­cle that is the bap­tism of the Holy Spir­it which bap­tism phys­i­cal­ly shows.

  10. It appears after read­ing var­i­ous pas­sages it isn’t the same bap­tism of repen­tence that John per­formed before the death and res­ur­rec­tion of Jesus and that the Holy Spir­it may be involved in bap­tism. The pas­sage I men­tioned ear­li­er from Mark 16:16 seems to be a broad, uni­ver­sal com­mand from Jesus,“Go into all the world and preach the good news to all cre­ation. Who­ev­er believes and is bap­tized shall be saved…If your expla­na­tion for bap­tism being posi­tioned with being saved in this pas­sage (and 1 peter 3:21) is that it may be a bap­tism of the Holy Spir­it then all bap­tisms post Christ’s res­ur­rec­tion would be that way based on this passage.

    I am not imply­ing that I believe you can’t be saved with­out baptism–faith only saves. But after study­ing these dif­fer­ent pas­sages it seems some­thing more mirac­u­lous is occur­ring in bap­tiz­ing some­one in the tri­une God that exceeds a sign and involves faith.

  11. As with all Bible dis­cus­sions, it all comes down to the issue of Bible alone and Authority.

    Before the Bible was even can­on­ized around 400, there was a Coun­cil held and the issue was not if infant bap­tism was right, it was if one had to wait 8 days or not which the coun­cil agreed they did­n’t for the next 1200 years after the Bible came to be, babies were bap­tized. Even the orig­i­nal Protes­tant church­es bap­tized infants. Not bap­tiz­ing them is fair­ly new phe­nom­e­non. A man made tradition.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Rick Beckman