Credo-Baptism Answers Best Baptist Arguments Against Infant Baptism

[Mountain Presbyterian]

I'm hoping that some of you Baptists can provide the best arguments in favor of your position regarding baptism. I have never really been very settled on this issue, and I am still not settled on what I believe the Bible to teach about baptism. I am a Presbyterian, and I am familiar with the arguments that the Presbyterians give for their position, and I would like to be just as familiar with the best arguments that the Baptists make.

 

[TheInquirer]

1) No compelling Biblical argument demonstrating baptism replaces circumcision.

Read Col. 2 carefully and the comparison is between circumcision of the flesh and the spiritual circumcision done at regeneration.

“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:11–12, ESV)

Everything in that passage pertains to salvation.

Baptism is unlike circumcision in many ways:

• Is not male only
• Is not done on the 8th day for infants
• Is not applied to household servants or slaves of believing masters
• Does not involve the cutting of flesh

Additionally, Paul makes it clear that Jesus is the fulfillment of the “offspring” promise to Abraham. Physical offspring do not have the same significance under the New Covenant as it did under the Abrahamic. Any connection to the Abrahamic Covenant is through spiritual union with Christ and not physical descent.

If you read carefully Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:15-28, you will notice some important connections between the Abrahamic covenant, Jesus, and baptism. This would be the perfect place for Paul to clearly teach that baptism replaces circumcision, especially in light of the circumcision controversy in the church. However, he never does that, ever. Instead, we get this statement at the end of the passage:

“But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:25–29, ESV)

There is just no room at all for infant baptism anywhere in his argument in my opinion. It is all about union with Christ through faith.

Seems to me the better OT comparison with baptism is ceremonial washings but I would need to do some more work on that one.

2) The pattern given at the beginning of Acts is repent, faith in Jesus (implied from context) and be baptized, those things all go together:

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 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 2:38–39, ESV)

Notice the three groups mentioned - you, your children, and those far off - are summarized as “everyone who God calls to Himself.” I believe this is the call of salvation as the context seems to demand and not a general, non-salvific call. The promise in v.39 is the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit mentioned in v.38 (remember the context of the passage is the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost and Peter answering the criticism of the crowds for speaking in foreign languages). That gift is for the elect alone.

When it comes to the household baptisms in Acts, there is no indication that the pattern of repent, believe, and be baptized is altered to make allowance for unbelieving infants. Can entire households come to saving faith at the same time? Of course, over 3,000 men came to faith at the same time at Pentecost. There is no reason to assume the same thing isn’t happening in the household baptism accounts. There also is not any indication infants were baptized at Pentecost so why assume they were later on in the book?

“And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:40–41, ESV)

At Pentecost, it is clear that only those who responded to Peter’s preaching were baptized, not their children!

3) The Great Commission:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 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, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18–20, ESV)

Why would adult believers be baptized in the name of the Triune God but then knowingly baptize unregenerate children in that same name? If one is consistent in their soteriology, I don’t see any reason at all to presume all children of believers will be saved. The only justification I have heard for doing this is the assumption that baptism is operating in the same manner as circumcision. However, if baptism is not the New Covenant sign of circumcision, then the justification for baptizing infants seems to vanish.

4) Peter’s teaching on baptism in the difficult 1 Peter 3:18-22 passage:

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.” (1 Peter 3:18–22, ESV)

Leaving aside the Noah reference, everything about baptism here relates to salvation including the “appeal to God for a good conscience” and Jesus dying to redeem people and bring them to God. Again, there is no room here to smuggle in another category of baptism recipients (those who we know are not yet redeemed - unregenerate infants).

5) Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are New Covenant signs for the same group of people, those who profess to have faith in Christ and are part of the New Covenant. It would take more work to explain this but I am away from home on a mobile device and it has already taken a long time to type all this (if you are in Gray, I am typing this not far from you as I am actually in Jonesborough TN at the moment ).

 

[brandonadams]

See the resources on these two sites

https://www.1689federalism.com/

Recommended Reading List | 1689 Federalism

www.1689federalism.com

Contrast

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it

contrast2.wordpress.com

 

[JesusChristSaved]

1) No compelling Biblical argument demonstrating baptism replaces circumcision.

Read Col. 2 carefully and the comparison is between circumcision of the flesh and the spiritual circumcision done at regeneration.

“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:11–12, ESV)

Everything in that passage pertains to salvation.

Baptism is unlike circumcision in many ways:

• Is not male only
• Is not done on the 8th day for infants
• Is not applied to household servants or slaves of believing masters
• Does not involve the cutting of flesh

Additionally, Paul makes it clear that Jesus is the fulfillment of the “offspring” promise to Abraham. Physical offspring do not have the same significance under the New Covenant as it did under the Abrahamic. Any connection to the Abrahamic Covenant is through spiritual union with Christ and not physical descent.

If you read carefully Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:15-28, you will notice some important connections between the Abrahamic covenant, Jesus, and baptism. This would be the perfect place for Paul to clearly teach that baptism replaces circumcision, especially in light of the circumcision controversy in the church. However, he never does that, ever. Instead, we get this statement at the end of the passage:

“But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:25–29, ESV)

There is just no room at all for infant baptism anywhere in his argument in my opinion. It is all about union with Christ through faith.

Seems to me the better OT comparison with baptism is ceremonial washings but I would need to do some more work on that one.

2) The pattern given at the beginning of Acts is repent, faith in Jesus (implied from context) and be baptized, those things all go together:

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 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 2:38–39, ESV)

Notice the three groups mentioned - you, your children, and those far off - are summarized as “everyone who God calls to Himself.” I believe this is the call of salvation as the context seems to demand and not a general, non-salvific call. The promise in v.39 is the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit mentioned in v.38 (remember the context of the passage is the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost and Peter answering the criticism of the crowds for speaking in foreign languages). That gift is for the elect alone.

When it comes to the household baptisms in Acts, there is no indication that the pattern of repent, believe, and be baptized is altered to make allowance for unbelieving infants. Can entire households come to saving faith at the same time? Of course, over 3,000 men came to faith at the same time at Pentecost. There is no reason to assume the same thing isn’t happening in the household baptism accounts. There also is not any indication infants were baptized at Pentecost so why assume they were later on in the book?

“And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:40–41, ESV)

At Pentecost, it is clear that only those who responded to Peter’s preaching were baptized, not their children!

3) The Great Commission:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 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, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18–20, ESV)

Why would adult believers be baptized in the name of the Triune God but then knowingly baptize unregenerate children in that same name? If one is consistent in their soteriology, I don’t see any reason at all to presume all children of believers will be saved. The only justification I have heard for doing this is the assumption that baptism is operating in the same manner as circumcision. However, if baptism is not the New Covenant sign of circumcision, then the justification for baptizing infants seems to vanish.

4) Peter’s teaching on baptism in the difficult 1 Peter 3:18-22 passage:

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.” (1 Peter 3:18–22, ESV)

Leaving aside the Noah reference, everything about baptism here relates to salvation including the “appeal to God for a good conscience” and Jesus dying to redeem people and bring them to God. Again, there is no room here to smuggle in another category of baptism recipients (those who we know are not yet redeemed - unregenerate infants).

5) Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are New Covenant signs for the same group of people, those who profess to have faith in Christ and are part of the New Covenant. It would take more work to explain this but I am away from home on a mobile device and it has already taken a long time to type all this (if you are in Gray, I am typing this not far from you as I am actually in Jonesborough TN at the moment ).

Very comprehensive, thanks for this! I would like to hear more on point 5. Strengthened my Baptistic convictions.

 

[Mountain Presbyterian]

1) No compelling Biblical argument demonstrating baptism replaces circumcision.

Read Col. 2 carefully and the comparison is between circumcision of the flesh and the spiritual circumcision done at regeneration.

“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:11–12, ESV)

Everything in that passage pertains to salvation.

Baptism is unlike circumcision in many ways:

• Is not male only
• Is not done on the 8th day for infants
• Is not applied to household servants or slaves of believing masters
• Does not involve the cutting of flesh

Additionally, Paul makes it clear that Jesus is the fulfillment of the “offspring” promise to Abraham. Physical offspring do not have the same significance under the New Covenant as it did under the Abrahamic. Any connection to the Abrahamic Covenant is through spiritual union with Christ and not physical descent.

If you read carefully Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:15-28, you will notice some important connections between the Abrahamic covenant, Jesus, and baptism. This would be the perfect place for Paul to clearly teach that baptism replaces circumcision, especially in light of the circumcision controversy in the church. However, he never does that, ever. Instead, we get this statement at the end of the passage:

“But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:25–29, ESV)

There is just no room at all for infant baptism anywhere in his argument in my opinion. It is all about union with Christ through faith.

Seems to me the better OT comparison with baptism is ceremonial washings but I would need to do some more work on that one.

2) The pattern given at the beginning of Acts is repent, faith in Jesus (implied from context) and be baptized, those things all go together:

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 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 2:38–39, ESV)

Notice the three groups mentioned - you, your children, and those far off - are summarized as “everyone who God calls to Himself.” I believe this is the call of salvation as the context seems to demand and not a general, non-salvific call. The promise in v.39 is the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit mentioned in v.38 (remember the context of the passage is the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost and Peter answering the criticism of the crowds for speaking in foreign languages). That gift is for the elect alone.

When it comes to the household baptisms in Acts, there is no indication that the pattern of repent, believe, and be baptized is altered to make allowance for unbelieving infants. Can entire households come to saving faith at the same time? Of course, over 3,000 men came to faith at the same time at Pentecost. There is no reason to assume the same thing isn’t happening in the household baptism accounts. There also is not any indication infants were baptized at Pentecost so why assume they were later on in the book?

“And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:40–41, ESV)

At Pentecost, it is clear that only those who responded to Peter’s preaching were baptized, not their children!

3) The Great Commission:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 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, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18–20, ESV)

Why would adult believers be baptized in the name of the Triune God but then knowingly baptize unregenerate children in that same name? If one is consistent in their soteriology, I don’t see any reason at all to presume all children of believers will be saved. The only justification I have heard for doing this is the assumption that baptism is operating in the same manner as circumcision. However, if baptism is not the New Covenant sign of circumcision, then the justification for baptizing infants seems to vanish.

4) Peter’s teaching on baptism in the difficult 1 Peter 3:18-22 passage:

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.” (1 Peter 3:18–22, ESV)

Leaving aside the Noah reference, everything about baptism here relates to salvation including the “appeal to God for a good conscience” and Jesus dying to redeem people and bring them to God. Again, there is no room here to smuggle in another category of baptism recipients (those who we know are not yet redeemed - unregenerate infants).

5) Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are New Covenant signs for the same group of people, those who profess to have faith in Christ and are part of the New Covenant. It would take more work to explain this but I am away from home on a mobile device and it has already taken a long time to type all this (if you are in Gray, I am typing this not far from you as I am actually in Jonesborough TN at the moment ).

Thank you for this detained response! The main thing that has been getting me thinking about the Presbyterian view of baptism is that the New Testament seems to repeatedly make faith a necessary precondition of baptism. It has never really set easy with me either that the Presbyterians consider unregenerate infants as part of a body that is meant to only consist of Christians. The imagery of baptism in Romans 6 doesn’t make much sense either to me from the Presbyterian viewpoint. I’ll have to keep on studying all these things and asking the Lord to show me what it is that the Bible teaches.

 

[brandonadams]

Give this essay from William Cunningham a read:

Zwingli and the Doctrine of the Sacraments | William Cunningham

William Cunningham examines Zwingli’s doctrine of the sacraments, assessing his views of baptism and the Lord’s Supper within Reformation theology.

www.monergism.com

The difficulty is, not that the Catechism appears to teach that infants are all regenerated in baptism, but that it appears to teach that believers are the only proper recipients of baptism, as well as of the Lord’s Supper; while yet at the same time it also explicitly teaches, that the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized...

It tends greatly to introduce obscurity and confusion into our whole conceptions on the subject of baptism, that we see it ordinarily administered to infants, and very seldom to adults. This leads us insensibly to form very defective and erroneous conceptions of its design and effects, or rather to live with our minds very much in the condition of blanks, so far as concerns any distinct and definite views upon this subject. There is a great difficulty felt - a difficulty which Scripture does not afford us adequate materials for removing - in laying down any distinct and definite doctrine as to the bearing and efficacy of baptism in the case of infants, to whom alone ordinarily we see it administered. A sense of this difficulty is very apt to tempt us to remain contentedly in great ignorance of the whole subject, without any serious attempt to understand distinctly what baptism is and means, and how it is connected with the general doctrine of the sacraments. And yet it is quite plain to any one w’he is capable of reflecting upon the subject, that it is adult baptism alone which embodies and brings out the full idea of the ordinance, and should be regarded as the primary type of it, - that from which mainly and principally we should form our conceptions of what baptism is and means, and was intended to accomplish. It is in this aspect that baptism is ordinarily spoken about and presented to our contemplation in the New Testament, and we see something similar in tracing the operations of our missionaries who are engaged in preaching the gospel in heathen lands.

Adult baptism, then, exhibits the original and fundamental idea of the ordinance, as it is usually brought before us, and as it is directly and formally spoken about in the New Testament. And when baptism is contemplated in this light, there is no more difficulty in forming a distinct and definite conception regarding it than regarding the Lord’s Supper. Of adult baptism we can say, just as we do of the Lord’s Supper, that it is in every instance, according to the general doctrine of Protestants, either the sign and seal of a faith and a regeneration previously existing, already effected by God’s grace, or else that the reception of it was a hypocritical profession of a state of mind and feeling which has no existence. We have no doubt that the lawfulness and the obligation of infant baptism can be conclusively established from Scripture; but it is manifest that the general doctrine or theory just stated, with respect to the import and effect of the sacraments, and of baptism as a sacrament, cannot be applied fully in all its extent to the baptism of infants. The reason of this is, because Scripture does not afford us materials either for laying down any definite position as to a certain and invariable connection between baptism and spiritual blessings, - that is, for maintaining the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; or for stating such a distinct and definite alternative with respect to the efficacy of the ordinance in individuals, as has been stated above in the case of adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But notwithstanding these obvious considerations, we fear it is a very common thing for men, just because they ordinarily see infant, and very seldom see adult, baptism, to take the baptism of infants, with all the difficulties attaching, to give a precise and definite statement as to its design and effect in their case, and to allow this to regulate their whole conceptions with respect to this ordinance in particular, and even with respect to the sacraments in general...

It is impossible to deny, that the general description which the Shorter Catechism gives of a sacrament teaches, by plain implication, that the sacraments, so far as regards adults, are intended only for believers; while no Protestants, except some of the Lutherans, have ever held that infants are capable of exercising faith. It also teaches, by plain implication, in the previous question, the 91st, £hat the wholesome influence of the sacraments is experienced only by those who “by faith receive them.” All this is applied equally to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Its general import, as implying a virtual restriction of these ordinances to believers, is too clear to be misunderstood or to admit of being explained away. And then, again, the apparent discrepancy between this great principle, and the position that “the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized,” is too obvious to escape the notice of any one who deliberately examines the Catechism with a view to understand it. These considerations would lead us to expect to find that the discrepancy is only apparent, and that there is no great difficulty in pointing out a mode of reconciliation. The mode of reconciliation we have already hinted at. It is in substance this, that infant baptism is to be regarded as a peculiar, subordinate, supplemental, exceptional thing, which stands indeed firmly based on its own distinct and special grounds, but which cannot well be brought within the line of the general abstract definition or description of a sacrament, as applicable to adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper...

There can, then, be no reasonable doubt that the Shorter Catechism, in defining or describing a sacrament, restricts itself to the case of adult believers; and the only way of reconciling the definition with its teaching on the subject of infant baptism is by assuming that it is not to be applied absolutely and without all exception in other cases; and that infant baptism, though fully warranted by Scripture, does not correspond in all respects with the full sacramental principle in its utmost extent and clearness, as exhibited in adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and must therefore be regarded as occupying a peculiar and supplemental position. We know no other way of showing the consistency with each other of the different statements contained in the Catechism. The principle we have explained refutes the allegation of inconsistency or contradiction, and resolves the whole difficulty into a certain concession on the subject of infant baptism, - a concession not affecting the scriptural evidence for the maintenance of the practice of baptizing infants, but merely the fullness and completeness of the doctrinal explanation that should be given of its objects and effects...

See also David Wright (like Cunningham, a Scottish Presbyterian) https://www.amazon.com/What-has-Infant-Baptism-Done/dp/1842273574

 

[DanSSwing]

While I do believe the New Testament better supports the Baptist conception of the mode and proper objects of baptism, I believe the baptism question is ultimately downstream from the larger question concerning the nature of the New Covenant. I believe Scripture teaches that the New Covenant is different than the Old Covenant in that (1) it saves all of its members [the majority of Jews under the Old Covenant were probably not elect, despite being in the covenant] and (2) one attains to it, not through physical generation, but through regeneration brought about by the Holy Spirit leading to faith. Hence the sign of the covenant should be applied only to those who profess faith. I think we can learn these things about the New Covenant even from the Old Testament. Then we come to the New Testament, and that's the only application of the covenant sign that we clearly see. Plus we see these teachings about the New Covenant's nature confirmed.