Should infants be baptised?
Question 09004
Infant baptism, or paedobaptism, is practised by the majority of the world’s Christians, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and many Methodists. Given its prevalence, it is reasonable to ask whether Scripture supports the practice. The answer, examined on purely biblical grounds, is that it does not. This is not said dismissively or without respect for the sincerity of those who hold different convictions, but the New Testament evidence consistently points in a different direction.
The Absence of a Command
There is no command in the New Testament to baptise infants. There is no example of an infant being baptised. There is no instruction given to parents about presenting their children for baptism. Given that baptism is one of the two ordinances Jesus gave to the church, this silence is remarkable. If infant baptism were intended as normative Christian practice, one would expect at least one explicit instruction or unambiguous example. The New Testament provides neither.
The argument from silence can be misused, but in this case the silence is especially significant because the New Testament does speak extensively about baptism, about who should receive it, and about what it means. Every time it does so, the connection is with faith, repentance, and conscious response to the gospel. The silence regarding infants is not an oversight in a text that otherwise neglects the subject. It is a silence within a text that addresses the subject thoroughly and consistently links it to personal belief.
The Covenant Theology Argument
The most sophisticated case for infant baptism comes from covenant theology, which argues that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant. Just as circumcision was administered to the infant sons of Israelites under the Abrahamic covenant, so baptism should be administered to the infant children of believers under the new covenant. Colossians 2:11-12, which mentions both circumcision and baptism in close proximity, is often cited in support.
This argument has a surface plausibility, but it breaks down under examination. Circumcision was given to the physical descendants of Abraham as a sign of a national, ethnic covenant. It was administered exclusively to males. It did not require or presuppose faith on the part of the recipient. Baptism, by contrast, is given to believers of both sexes as a sign of personal union with Christ in His death and resurrection. The two signs do not function in parallel. Circumcision marked membership in a nation; baptism marks identification with a Saviour through faith. The covenant of which baptism is the sign is a covenant entered by faith, not by birth.
Colossians 2:11-12, read in context, actually supports believer’s baptism. Paul writes of being “buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God.” The baptism Paul describes is connected to faith, to a conscious spiritual reality of death and resurrection with Christ. This is not the language of an unconscious infant receiving a covenant sign; it is the language of a believer identifying with Christ through personal trust.
What About the Household Baptisms?
The household baptisms in Acts (Lydia’s household, the Philippian jailer’s household, and Stephanas’s household) are sometimes offered as evidence that infants were baptised. As noted in the previous article, this argument assumes the presence of infants without any textual evidence. In each case where the narrative provides detail, the household members are described as hearing, believing, or rejoicing. The household baptisms are consistent with the baptism of believing households, not with the baptism of unconscious infants.
The Historical Development
The earliest clear evidence for infant baptism comes from the late second and early third centuries, with Tertullian (c. AD 200) being the earliest writer to mention it explicitly, and notably he argued against the practice. Origen (c. AD 230) referred to infant baptism as an apostolic tradition, but this claim was made over a century and a half after the apostles, and it coincided with the growing development of baptismal regeneration theology, the belief that baptism itself washes away sin. As the theology of original sin developed and the fear grew that unbaptised infants who died would be condemned, the practice of infant baptism expanded. By the time of Augustine in the early fifth century, infant baptism was widespread and was defended on the grounds that it removed the guilt of original sin.
This historical trajectory is instructive. Infant baptism did not arise from a straightforward reading of the apostolic writings. It arose from theological developments about the nature of baptism itself, developments that moved baptism from an act of obedient identification to a sacrament that conveys saving grace. The Baptist conviction that baptism is for believers rests on a return to the New Testament pattern, not on a novelty introduced at the Reformation.
So, now what?
If you were baptised as an infant, that act was performed upon you without your knowledge or consent. It may have been done with sincere love by parents who desired God’s blessing on your life, and there is nothing wrong with honouring that intention. But the act itself does not meet the New Testament definition of baptism, which requires personal faith and conscious identification with Christ. If you have come to genuine faith in Jesus, believer’s baptism is the step that Scripture describes and commands. It is not a rejection of what your parents did for you; it is a personal act of obedience to what Christ has called you to do for yourself.
“And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptised?'” Acts 8:36 (ESV)
