Moving From “That’s Unbiblical” to a Baby-Baptizer

Introduction

For the first three or four years of my Christian life, I was convinced I was baptized as an infant. While I cannot recall why I was convinced of this, it was truth and reality in my head. So as a senior in college, I finally confronted my parents about it, saying, “why did you baptize me as a baby? That’s unbiblical!” My parents responded in shock, not because they disagreed with my “unbiblical” statement, but because I was flat out wrong: I had been dedicated as an infant, not baptized. What a perspective change that was for me.

I proceeded to get baptized later in the year as a result, but the irony of that statement overflows, as I am now convinced that baptizing children of a believing parent is biblical. So how does one go from one end of the continuum to the other? 

If you are looking for a comprehensive defense of the doctrine of paedobaptism, this is not the place you will find it. But I hope the brief re-telling of what convinced me to adopt an “unbiblical” position (in my own words) can serve to help those who are still wrestling with the doctrine. To summarize things, after months of research, there were two realities that tipped the scales for me: the mixed nature of the New Covenant community and the fact that all the covenants, especially the New Covenant, explicitly include children.

The Mixed Nature of the New Covenant Community

In the Old Covenant, you had a mixed community—full of regenerate and unregenerate, elect and non-elect, people. You had Isaac’s and Jacob’s on one hand, and Ishmael’s and Esau’s on the other hand. Yet even though some were believers and some were not, all received the covenant sign of circumcision and were, therefore, part of the covenant community.

For the credobaptist (those who believe the church should baptize believers only), this all changes in the New Covenant. Referencing Jeremiah 31, which says that “they shall all know me”, they would argue that the New Covenant community is un-mixed; it is only made up of regenerate believers. As such, no infant, who may or may not be a believer, should receive the covenant sign and be baptized. 

Much rides and falls on this argument. For, on the other hand, if the New Covenant community is actually still mixed, it follows that baptizing children of covenant people is not only allowed, but appropriate, as the principles seen in the Old Covenant continue. Just like God’s people were commanded to give the covenant sign to children by circumcision, so they now should give the covenant sign to children by baptism. As such, this was a main focus for me as I studied the issue.

What I found shocked me. The unified voice of the New Testament pointed to the covenant community still being mixed. In Romans 11, Paul says that gentiles in the church can be “cut off” (Rom 11:22), just like ethnic Israel. Additionally, he warns the Corinthians that they are the same as the Israelites and can be overthrown when he says that “our fathers… all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” (1 Cor 10:2–4, emphasis added). The author of Hebrews, talking to the church, warns that some can “fall away” (Heb 6:6), just like Israel did (cf. Heb 3–4). 

You can see the emphasis above: the New Covenant people of God are remarkably similar to the Old Covenant people of God. They are a mixed community. Now this does not mean that we can lose our salvation. Instead, it means that there are people who are truly part of the covenant community, having received the covenant sign of baptism, that might actually not know the Lord (see 1 John 2:19). Therefore, since the New Covenant community is like the Old Covenant community, we can apply the covenant sign just like they did in the Old Testament: to adults who profess faith and to the children of one or more believers.

The Children Are Included, Like Always

Now that is all well and good, and got me close. But I was still wrestling with the thought that what was convincing so far seemed like a very theological argument, but not a straight biblical one (if I can unfairly bifurcate the two). Where were the scripture verses? The proof texts? 

So one day, at Java House, I decided to just go through all the main texts in which a covenant is explicitly made or introduced in the Bible and see what I could find. Knowing that the covenants in the Old Testament clearly included children, I was interested to see if the texts on the New Covenant included them or not. 

Starting with all the covenants before Christ came, the Noahic covenant (Gen 9:9), the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:1–14), the Mosaic covenant (Dt 5:3, 9–10) and the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:11–12) all clearly include the children of believers as partakers of the covenant blessings and included in the community. While we do not have space here to list all of the texts referenced above, I encourage you to open your Bible and review them, to see the type of language that is used when children are explicitly included in God’s people.

Now came the critical question: would the same pattern hold true in the New Covenant, or would there be no reference to children being included? Contrary to what I had thought before, there was actually more clarity that children were included in the New Covenant in a greater quantity of passages. Note the inclusion of children in each of these passages. First, when talking about the New Covenant, Jeremiah says that “they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them.” (Jer. 32:38–40). 

Second, the Lord says something similar in Ezekiel regarding the New Covenant when he says, “They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them… My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Ez. 37:25–27). 

And finally Peter picks this up in the first sermon recorded in Acts, saying that, “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 2:39). 

The consistent and clear theme became clear to me: the children were included and continue to be included in the new, everlasting covenant the Lord has made with his people. And if they are included, then it is not only ok but it is proper, good, and joyful to give them the covenantal sign of baptism. 

Conclusion

While not the only things that convinced me, the two aforementioned topics were most impactful and formed the dual pillars that moved me from a credobaptist to a paedobaptist. I acknowledge that this is a large area of debate between faithful Christians, and am grateful for the genuine unity between Presbyterians and Baptists that occurs despite this debate. This is not a first tier issue. 

That being said, it does matter, and it is worth thinking about, no matter the life stage. Explore the topic and, at the very least, if you are not currently a paedobaptist, my hope is that this brief explanation of my journey gives you an understanding of why a Presbyterian could hold to what I used to consider an “unbiblical” viewpoint.