Caught Between Covenant and Confession: A Journey Through Baptism and Faith
Matthew 28:19-20
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Biblically speaking, a Christian is someone who trusts in Jesus Christ as their Savior, repents of sin, and follows Him through faith (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10). This faith involves a heart transformed by the Holy Spirit, producing love, obedience, and good works (spiritual fruit) as evidence (Galatians 5:22-23; James 2:17).
That said, is baptism significant?
It's not universally seen as the sole criterion for being a Christian. There are millions of baptized non-Christian's and millions more are unbaptized Christians. Is baptism something a Christian should be indifferent about? These are questions I think about a lot.
So today I want to dive into Paedobaptism, which comes from the Greek pais (child) and refers to the practice of baptizing infants.
To begin with, I was baptized as an infant (in a Roman Catholic Church), and I publicly reaffirmed that baptism ceremonially (in a Reformed Church). And re-reaffirmed it multitudes of times since.
Where does this Paedobaptism idea come from?
Pretty much every Christian sect practices this same view of baptism. Mainly the "Baptist" tradition doesn't. The reality is the reformation of the Church did not change Paedobaptism. It's become a deeply entrenched tradition across many traditions. Even though scripture DOES NOT support it. It's nowhere in the Word of God.
The Great Commission establishes baptism as a core component of discipleship. Jesus commands His followers to baptize as they make disciples, suggesting baptism is a public act of initiation into the Christian faith, tied to teaching and obedience. The context implies believers who respond to the gospel, which some (Baptists) use to argue for believer’s baptism (credobaptism) rather than infant baptism (paedobaptism). Paedobaptists interpret "all nations" and the covenantal framework of Scripture to include children of believers. And all these people have for centuries existed in separate states of power and influence because of this particular argument. And this war of ideas became very real for people on both sides. People lost their livelihoods. Anabaptist's (rebaptizers) were murdered by drowning, beheading, and so on. Catholics were subjugated by fire, water, and the sword for not baptizing their babies.
Let's begin by answering my question about whether or not baptism is biblically significant.
I believe Baptism is biblically significant.
Why? Because I hold Scripture, not the traditions of men, as the ultimate authority.
I see from the scripture that it's a command of Christ (Matthew 28:19). And a symbol of union with Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4). Baptism is a sign of repentance and forgiveness (Acts 2:38). And Baptism is a marker of entry into the church (1 Corinthians 12:13). Indifference is unbiblical because baptism is an act of obedience and witness, though faith, not the rite, saves (Romans 10:9; Luke 23:40-43).
Having accepted this position now there's just the question of Paedobaptism verses credobaptism.
Biblical Arguments for Paedobaptism:
Paedobaptists argue that infant baptism is rooted in Scripture, though not explicitly commanded, their tradition suggests that infant baptism is implied in scripture, (Acts 2:38-39, Colossians 2:11-12, Genesis 17:9-14, Deuteronomy 7:9, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33). All these biblical references in their minds, and traditional interpretations, suggest God’s promise extends to believers’ families, supporting their baptism of infants as a sign of covenant membership. Paedobaptists argue these passages, combined with the covenant theology of Scripture, imply infants of believers are part of the covenant community and eligible for baptism, even without personal faith, as a sign of God’s grace. And this isn't limited to Roman Catholic or Orthodoxy (see prevenient grace in Wesleyan theology). This view is held across Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and Methodist traditions, emphasizing God’s initiative over human response. And I can see value in that belief. Though I've witnessed that the "community" does a poor job of upholding its commitment to follow through on their promise to grow up that child in faith (definitely in my case).
On Household Baptisms Ambiguity:
Acts 16:15 and 16:33 don’t specify infants, and some argue the context implies believers (Acts 16:34 notes the jailer’s household "believed" ). Credobaptists see these as supporting believer’s baptism, not paedobaptism. And frankly I agree, even though I am not affiliated with the Baptist church.
Critics of paedobaptism argue that the New Covenant differs from the Old, emphasizing personal faith (Jeremiah 31:31-34). It’s symbolic, an object lesson, a public declaration, clearly and unmistakably a union of the believers in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They've come to faith and are in union with Christ, and now symbolically they're now confessing that union in their baptism. An infant cannot do this. And so, the absence of clear infant baptism examples in Scripture leads Credobaptists to reject it, prioritizing explicit biblical warrant over inferred tradition. Credobaptist hermeneutics, prioritizes explicit Scripture (sola scriptura) over covenantal inferences. And likewise, they argue this same case on the subject of infant baptism replacing circumcising children. Again, scripture says nothing about this. Circumcising male children was merely a matter of identity, it says nothing about their spiritual condition.
So, what is infant baptism really?
Is it like many believe, a salvific act that protects their children before their ultimate conversion and confirmation into faith? A sort of collective community of faith that unites all adult believers with the infant and somehow infuses them. Is this reality? Is this the regenerate church? Is this the true church. Again, there are millions of infant baptized haters of the church. What happened? What do we say of them?
Symbol of Union with Christ:
Romans 6:3-4
"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 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."
Baptism represents dying with Christ and rising into new life, symbolizing the believer’s identification with His death and resurrection. It's not superimposed by the state Church community, or the parents. Peter’s call to "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38) links baptism to forgiveness, marking it a public response to the gospel. It's in response to faith alone (sola fide). It's a sign of the covenant. A sign of repentance and forgiveness. I firmly believe this, which makes me a Protestant heretic.
I believe baptism unites believers into the body of Christ, signifying inclusion in the church through the Spirit. Not by surrogate faith. Not in an unconscious faith. Not by a sacrament, but by faith alone.
1 Corinthians 12:13
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
Scripture consistently teaches salvation by faith (John 3:16; Romans 10:9; Luke 23:40-43). Baptism, while significant, is not a prerequisite for salvation, as seen with the thief on the cross. Infant baptism’s salvific claim (as taught in Catholicism) relies on sacramental theology, not explicit scripture, which, of course, I challenge. I believe it may be a sign of God’s prevenient grace or covenant (the paedobaptist view), but I also hold that salvation requires personal faith (the credobaptist view). So I truly am caught between two worlds of thought on this one.
In my own mind I've worked it out that my public faith and reaffirmed baptism is sufficient. Yet I hold that I might be wrong on this. So now I want to explore whether a person like me, (former Catholic now Protestant), should be baptized in water.
My question hinges on whether my infant baptism at the hands of my parents, now reaffirmed publicly and repeatedly, fulfills the biblical call to baptism, or if my credobaptist convictions; emphasizing personal faith and a conscious response to the gospel, require adult water baptism.
The Catholic/Orthodox view:
My infant baptism was a valid sacrament, cleansing original sin and initiating me into the church. Subsequent confirmation fulfilled their purpose.
The Credobaptist View:
Baptism should follow personal faith (Acts 2:38), and my infant baptism, lacking my conscious confession, may not align with Scripture’s model (Romans 6:3-4). My reaffirmations reflect faith but are not "baptism".
My View:
I believe salvation is by repentance and faith, not baptism, yet I see baptism as a significant act of obedience (Matthew 28:19). My public reaffirmations have satisfied me and in my mind are sufficient, but I'm open to being wrong, prompting this exploration.
Given my credobaptist leanings, shouldn't I want to be baptized (full immersion) as an adult? It's a good question. Certainly, I see no shame in it and absolutely I am not ashamed of Christ.
New Testament baptisms involve believers confessing faith. What comes to my mind often is the Ethiopian eunuch.
Acts 10:47-48
"Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
They had already received the Spirit. In my mind they are at that point, completely redeemed. In my case, following my "sudden conversion" (as I refer to it) and subsequent faith, I did request baptism and was counseled that reaffirming my infant baptism would suffice. This introduces a practical and pastoral dimension to your discernment. This pragmatic perspective made sense to me, and still does. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" emphasizes a single, valid baptism. Reaffirming my infant baptism, rather than rebaptizing, upholds this, especially since my faith is evident post-conversion. No adult baptism is needed unless I doubt its validity.
And therein lies the question.
The Answer:
Does my adult reaffirmation bring me peace is the real answer to the question. Can I rest in my faith, secure in Christ's promise of salvation (John 3:16). I trust God to guide me into the waters or simply deeper into my faith, knowing He sees my heart.
Psalm 32:8
"I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you."
I'm going to leave it at this...
Lord Jesus, thank You for my conversion and faith. As I wrestle with my infant baptism’s validity, guide me by Your Word and Spirit. Show me if adult baptism is needed or if my reaffirmation is enough. Let my faith proclaim Your name, uniting me with Your church. Amen.