Introduction

From the time of the Reformation, the dispute has risen, sometimes to fever pitch, regarding the proper recipients of Christian baptism. The magisterial reformer, John Calvin, gave theological expression to the protestant practice of infant baptism, and on the other hand, the radical reformers argued that believer’s baptism is the proper expression of baptism in the Christian era. Today the debate still continues, and while it is regarded as a more intramural debate than it has in previous generations, it still is an important issue that calls each generation to seek the Scriptures to see if these things are so. This paper seeks to present a case for believers as the only proper recipients of baptism. As will be seen, the underlying issues center around the nature of the church and its continuity or discontinuity with the old covenant.

Statement of Positions

The positions discussed in this paper are (1) infant baptism, commonly referred to as paedobaptism (also household baptism or oikobaptism), and (2) believer’s baptism, commonly referred to as credobaptism.¹ Paedobaptists believe that children born into families with at least one believing parent should be baptized as an infant. Alternatively, credobaptists believe that only upon a credible profession of faith should a person be baptized, thus excluding infants from the waters of baptism. Paedobaptists and credobaptists, while having a significant disagreement on the recipients of baptism still agree that baptism is not a saving action and neither contributes to salvation or regeneration.²

Limiting the Scope

Due to the limited length of this paper, a number of limitations should be recognized before the arguments are considered. Notions of baptism mentioned here stay within the Reformed/Calvinistic tradition. In addition, arguments of consequence will not be discussed (e.g., if credobaptism is true, there seems to be no place for children. Or, if paedobaptism is true, children have a false sense of assurance and they will not be called to repentance). The mode of baptism, while relevant to this topic, will also not be discussed. And finally, arguments from history will not be used here.³ The Scripture is the agreed upon final authority for both the paedo and credobaptist, so it is to Scripture alone that will be the source of appeal.⁴

Defining Baptism⁵

Murray, a paedobaptist, defines baptism as “the sign and seal of membership in Christ’s body, the church.”⁶ McCune, a credobaptist, similarly says water baptism “signifies and symbolizes incorporation or identification [to Christ] and…is an initiatory rite into the visible expression of the body of Christ—the local church.”⁷ While there may be quibbles over particulars, both paedobaptists and credobaptists can come to a general agreement over the definition of baptism as an initiatory rite.⁸ Murray’s definition will be sufficient for this paper.⁹

The Case For Infant Baptism

The case for infant baptism is not so much an exegetical one in the sense that there are certain texts that explicitly teach it or give a clear example. It is primarily a theological argument. Murray says “an express command or a proven instance is not the only kind of evidence that should be regarded as sufficient. What by good and necessary inference can be deduced from Scripture is of authority in the church of God as well as what is expressly set down in Scripture.”¹⁰ With this in mind, Murray succinctly states the argument for infant baptism: “The basic premise of the argument for infant baptism is that the New Testament economy is the unfolding and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and that the necessary implication is the unity and continuity of the church.”¹¹

Booth is helpful when he provides the following summation:¹²

1. Covenant Theology. Throughout the Bible, God relates to his people by way of a covenant of grace. Covenant theology provides the basic framework for rightly interpreting Scripture.
2. Continuity of the Covenant of Grace. The Bible teaches one and the same way of salvation in both the Old and New Testaments, despite some different outward requirements.
3. Continuity of the People of God. Since there is one covenant of grace between God and man, there is one continuous people of God (the church) in the Old and New Testaments.
4. Continuity of the Covenant Signs. Baptism is the sign of the covenant in the New Testament, just as circumcision was the sign of the covenant in the Old Testament.
5. Continuity of Households. Whole households are included in God’s redemptive covenant.

These points will be narrowed to three for this paper: 1) the continuity between old and new covenant people; 2) the continuity of the household or genealogical principle; and 3) the continuity between circumcision and baptism. These three continuity arguments will be examined and critiqued in turn.

1. Continuity Between Old and New Covenant People

The argument of paedobaptism is based primarily on the unity of the covenant of grace and the oneness of the people of God in all ages.¹³ This section will examine the argument of continuity between the Old and New Testaments, specifically, the old and new covenants.¹⁴ Generally, both Old and New Testaments have an initiatory sign or rite. The Abrahamic covenant established the sign of the OT as circumcision and this covenant sign was given to the male children of the covenant when they were eight days old (Gen 17:9–14). In the NT the initiatory rite is baptism (Matt 28:19). Both of these signs are outward signs, that do not grant what they signify, but are an outward rite of entrance into the “covenant community.”

It is obvious that circumcision in the OT was given to those who were not able to profess faith. This principle, of administering the covenant sign to infants (specifically, male infants who were eight days old), is nowhere repealed in the New Testament.¹⁵ Berkouwer says, “Against those who asked for a direct scriptural proof in which infant baptism was divinely commanded, the Reformers courageously pointed at the injustice of this question. In response, they asked their critics precisely where the Bible says that this fundamental Covenant relation is broken in the New Covenant.”¹⁶ The fact that there is no indication that the way in which God dealt with covenant children has changed puts the burden of proof upon those who defend credobaptism to demonstrate how the covenant God changed his dealings with children.

Response

While the continuity of the Old and New Testaments is a large area of study, this response will look specifically at the nature of the “covenant community” in both the Old and New Testaments to see if the claim of continuity holds.¹⁷ What is disputed is not the fact that God’s redemptive work through the ages comes through biblical covenants. What is under dispute is that the biblical covenants are an expression of one covenant of grace.¹⁸ This one covenant of grace is the heart of covenant theology and it argues for a continuity in God’s redemptive work through the ages.¹⁹ In terms of the nature or membership of the covenant community, one would expect that covenant theologians would see a continuity in membership, that is a mixed community consisting of believers and their children—children who may or may not be elect. The emphasis on the members of the covenant being believers and their children is one of the key issues in the baptism debate, and if the new covenant was only for the elect, it would undermine the argument for infant baptism since only the elect are in the covenant and would receive the sign of the covenant. Surprisingly many covenant theologians, including the Westminster divines, recognize that the new covenant is a covenant between God and the elect only.²⁰ However, Venema states, “These theologians, while acknowledging that the life and salvation promised in the covenant of grace are inherited only by the elect, argue that the covenant promise, together with its accompanying obligation, is extended to Abraham and his seed.”²¹ This is held because it is assumed that, apart from explicit biblical warrant to the contrary, the covenant of grace continues to include believers and their children.²² This concept directly relates to the nature of the church. Under this scheme, believers and their children are likewise included in the church.²³ This highlights a big difference since the credobaptist sees the church (or new covenant community) comprised of regenerate, believing people, and not a mixed people like national Israel.²⁴ If this latter view of the church is correct, then paedobaptism is likewise held to be incorrect.

The following arguments demonstrate why the nature of the new covenant community comprises regenerate, believing individuals, and is not a mixed people like national Israel. What is key to the discussion is that the promise of the new covenant (Jer 31:29–34) and its fulfillment in Christ (Luke 22:20; Heb 8–10) reveal that the covenant community is not continuous and supports the credobaptist view, thus undermining the main paedobaptist argument.

First, the promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:33–34:

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

What is important to this discussion is when God says, “they shall all know me” (Jer 31:34). This is significant since all those in the new covenant will know God—speaking of a salvific knowledge of God.²⁵ Not only do significant structural changes result from this,²⁶ but under the new covenant, all will be regenerate—“I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts” (Jer 31:33). This is held in contrast to the old covenant which was broken because of the mixed nature of the community (Jer 31:32). This means there is no remnant motif under the new covenant; it cannot be said of the new covenant community that “not all Israel was Israel” (Rom 9:6).²⁷ The argument of Hebrews further demonstrates the supremacy of Christ’s salvific work (Heb 7:22–25; 9:15, 23–25; 10:10–18). Christ’s work entails better promises, better sacrifices, and therefore, a better covenant. His work brought full, effective, and complete salvation unlike the types and shadows of old (Heb 7–10).²⁸ Therefore, all those in the new covenant are regenerate, not a mixed people like Israel of old.

Second, the salvific benefits of the new covenant apply to the church today, not just in the future.²⁹ There are no unbelievers or possible covenant breakers in the new covenant today since the salvific benefits of the covenant have been enacted. Hebrews 8–10 strongly suggests this is the case, especially when it says that “Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises” (Heb 8:6). In this verse, “enacted” emphasizes the completed action. Wellum states, “In Christ’s coming, the new age is here, the Spirit has been poured out on the entire community, and we now experience our adoption as sons including the full forgiveness of sin (see Rom 8), even though we long for the end.”³⁰

Finally, the NT concept of the church strongly suggests a regenerate community. The church is a community in union with Christ, born of his Spirit, raised and seated with him in the heavenly places (Eph 2:5–6; Col 2:12–13; 3:3). The NT knows nothing of one who is “in Christ” who is not effectually called of the Father, born of the Spirit, justified, holy, and awaiting glorification.³¹ Given this, the sign of the new covenant age, baptism, must only be applied to those who have repented and believe. This is what is expected given the nature of the change following the work of Christ, and this is what is seen in the NT teaching and examples of baptism. Baptism is regarded as a sign that the realities of union with Christ have been applied.

2. Continuity of the Household or Genealogical Principle

The household or genealogical principle is simply a principle concerning families. That is, God’s dealings in the past dealt with families, and this principle is continuing since it is nowhere repealed in the New Testament, rather, there are definite indications that God continues to work with families.³² In Genesis 12:7 God says to Abram, “for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever.” In Acts 2:38–39, as Peter preaches at Pentecost he says, “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. For the promise is for you and for your children.” These verses are said to support the continuity of God’s promise between a believer and their children.

The genealogical principle has additional support, passages such as Deuteronomy 7:9 say, “Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations.”³³ That is, his covenant is for current covenant members and their children. Wilson cites texts such as Jeremiah 32:38–40, Isaiah 59:21, and Acts 2:39 to support his claim that the new covenant promised by the prophets included children.³⁴ Others mention the idea that the types of baptism in Scripture, e.g., the Genesis flood (1 Pet 3:20–21), and the baptism of Moses (1 Cor 10:1–2), both included families and children.³⁵ There was Jesus’ attitude toward children (Luke 18:15–17; Mark 10:13–16; Matt 19:13–15) which speaks to the reality of their covenantal inclusion in the kingdom of God that he preached.³⁶ Paul addressed children as saints (Eph 1:1; 6:1, 4; Col 3:20–21).³⁷ Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that children with at least one believing parent is “holy.”³⁸ Such evidence is weighty when considering the idea that children of believers are included in the same way as children were in the OT. This evidence, with a lack of a direct repeal of the genealogical principle, is argued to support the paedobaptist position.³⁹

Relating this continuing genealogical principle to baptism then, is supported by the NT evidence of household baptisms (discussed in detail below). While Murray agrees that there is no explicit example of infant baptism in the NT, he says, “it would be practically impossible to believe that in none of these households were there any infants. It would be unreasonable to believe so. The infants in the households belonged to the households and would be baptized.”⁴⁰

Response

Since there is no text that explicitly repeals the genealogical principle, does Scripture give us indications that the administration after the time of Christ is different than before Christ?⁴¹ In what follows, it is argued that the NT does give indications that the genealogical principle was repealed.

First, frequent references are made to Acts 2:39 “the promise is for you and your children” to support the idea that the covenant sign to be given to children.⁴² Interestingly, many paedobaptists do not include the rest of the verse during the discussion of this text. The full sentence reads, “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” (emphasis added). If the covenant sign is to be applied to children based on this text, then consistency demands it to be applied to all who are far off as well. However, Acts 2:38–39 together and in context simply do not teach such an idea. From the context, the promise is “the gift of the Holy Spirit” (2:38), and those who receive it are ultimately “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (2:39). The promise is for all those who are called, whether Jew or Gentile, not for believer’s and their children. This text does not speak of a continuance of the genealogical principle, rather the promise is for the elect only.

Second, it must be noted that John’s baptism—while not “Christian” baptism as paedobaptists are quick to point out—was nonetheless an example of baptism functioning outside of the genealogical or household principle.⁴³ John’s baptism is not an explicit repeal of the household principle, but he does explicitly turn away those who said “We have Abraham as our Father” (Matt 3:9). True children of Abraham bear fruit in keeping with repentance (Matt 3:9–10). John’s baptism also introduced the idea that baptism was, at least in this case, not applicable to infants, but only those who professed (and demonstrated) repentance and faith (Matt 3:11). While space does not permit elaboration, it must be recognized that John’s baptism provides a better exemplar to Christian baptism than does circumcision (Acts 10:34–37).

Third, the household baptisms in the NT do not support the continuation of the genealogical principle, rather upon examination they are shown to support believer’s baptism. The different household baptisms will now be examined.

Cornelius’ Household

Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius’ household (Acts 10:22; 11:12, 14). The text expressly states “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” (Acts 10:44; cf. 11:14–15), and in Acts 10:47 Peter baptized those who had received the Spirit. Peter refers back to Pentecost where only “those who received his word” were baptized (Acts 2:41). While it does not explicitly say there were no children in the household, those who were there “heard the word” (Acts 10:44) and were “speaking in tongues and extolling God” (Acts 10:46).⁴⁴ Certainly this episode does not support infant baptism, but is rather a strong indicator for believer’s baptism.

Lydia’s Household

There is not much detail concerning the baptism of Lydia and her household (Acts 16:13–15). It seems that only women were at the riverside where Lydia was converted (v. 13), and it appears that Lydia and her household were baptized at the river since after she is baptized she invites Paul back to her house to stay (v. 15). The data is inconclusive but there is no mention of children of any age, nor her husband. Certainly no one would argue that mature women would be baptized based on Lydia’s household headship. It’s more likely that the women with her at the riverbank were of her household and that they believed and were baptized.

The Philippian Jailer’s Household

The baptism of the Philippian jailer’s household (Acts 16:30–34) also appears to support believer’s baptism rather than infant baptism.⁴⁵ The jailer’s household rejoiced that he believed in God (v. 34).⁴⁶ Certainly they believed as well since it would be hard to imagine that they rejected the message that Paul preached to them (v. 32) and then were baptized (v. 33) and then rejoiced that the jailer believed (v. 34). The text is clear that the entire household was baptized and the entire household rejoiced in the jailer’s faith. Infants do not rejoice over the faith of others, which would exclude their presence in this text since the entire household (the same ones who were baptized) was rejoicing. Rather, it seems clear that his household heard the word, believed, were baptized, and rejoiced.

Crispus’ Household

In Acts 18:8, it is said that Crispus “believed in the Lord, together with his entire household.” Therefore, it is plain that his entire household believed and were baptized following the pattern established at Pentecost. In fact the verse continues, “And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.”

Stephanas’ Household

This household baptism is not in Acts, but is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:16 where Paul testifies that he baptized the household of Stephanas. Here again, there is no support for infant baptism as part of this household baptism since 1 Corinthians 16:15 (“you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints”) makes it clear that the household was converted (i.e., they were believers) and “devoted themselves to the service of the saints.” Such descriptions are not applicable to infants. Again, the evidence here supports not infant baptism, but believer’s baptism.

Conclusion

In each of the cases of household baptism, there is no reason for assuming that the genealogical principle is perpetuated. Rather the pattern of belief and baptism from Pentecost continues throughout Acts and the household baptisms.

Excursus: NT Attitude Toward Children

Regardless of the lack of evidence provided by the accounts of household baptism in the NT, some respond with the idea that the NT portrays children in such a way that they are regarded as saints, and holy because of their parents’ faith. Bavinck uses this as his starting point into the argument when he states: “The validity of infant baptism depends exclusively on how Scripture regards the children of believers and hence wants us to regard them. If Scripture speaks about such children in the same way it does about adult believers, the right and hence the duty to practice infant baptism has been established.”⁴⁷ Here, the NT’s attitude is examined to see if it lends support to paedobaptist beliefs.

Some argue from Matthew 18:1–6 and 19:13–15 and their parallels⁴⁸ that Jesus includes little children in the kingdom of God and thus, they should not be forbidden from baptism.⁴⁹ However, this cannot be sustained, as many paedobaptists even admit. In Matthew 18 Jesus is teaching that if one is to enter the kingdom, he is to enter like a child who responds to Jesus’ call.⁵⁰ In Matthew 19 Jesus blesses the children but made no promise of entering the kingdom. The most that can be taken from these passages is infant blessing, not infant baptism.⁵¹

First Corinthians 7:14 is also used to defend infant baptism.⁵² However, when Paul says that children are “holy” through a believing parent, he does not mean that they are part of the covenant. In the same verse he says that the unbelieving spouse is “made holy.” Consistency would demand that that the unbelieving spouse should be baptized or included in the covenant since they are “made holy” just as the children are “holy.”⁵³

Lastly, the addressing of the children in texts like Ephesians 6:1–4 as “saints” and “faithful” (Eph 1:1), would not help the paedobaptists since infants are not given instructions to obey their parents or are called faithful.⁵⁴ It would seem that from the text alone that these children were confessors.⁵⁵

3. Continuity Between Circumcision and Baptism

The continuity between circumcision and baptism is a key issue in establishing the practice of infant baptism. All of the paedobaptist arguments discussed thus far assume that circumcision and baptism are practically equivalent initiatory rites into their respective covenant communities and while the sign has changed, its recipients remain the same. This section will examine the arguments set forth to prove the continuity between the signs.

Berkhof flatly states, “If baptism did not take its place [as new covenant initiatory rite], then the NT has no initiatory rite.”⁵⁶ If it is granted that both signs function as an initiatory rite, there are two main lines of evidence that suggest that their application function in the same manner. The first, is based on an identity in meaning between circumcision and baptism. Circumcision refers to the cutting away of sin and a change of heart, and baptism refers to the washing away of sin, and to spiritual renewal.⁵⁷ What is argued is that the outward form has indeed changed, but there was no change in what the sign represents. Booth helpfully provides a number of continuities between circumcision and baptism:

Both are (1) initiatory rites; (2) signify an inward reality; (3) picture the death of the old man of sin; (3) represent repentance; (4) represent regeneration; (5) represent justification by faith; (6) represent a clean heart; (7) represent union and communion with God; (8) indicate citizenship in Israel; (9) indicate separation from the world; and both (10) can lead to either blessings or curses.⁵⁸

The second line of evidence is based on a direct textual argument found in Colossians 2:11–12 which is said to clearly link baptism with circumcision. Chapell says of this verse, “These words remind us that salvation comes through faith, and also that the rite of circumcision that once signified the benefits of Abraham’s covenant has been replaced by baptism” (emphasis original).⁵⁹

Response

While space limits the ability to respond to each of Booth’s ten points of similarities between circumcision and baptism, a few of these similarities will be examined here as well as some of the dissimilarities that must be kept in mind when consider the relationship between circumcision and baptism. Following this, a brief discussion on Colossians 2:11–12 will demonstrate that this text does not support baptism as the replacement of circumcision.

Similarities and Dissimilarities between Circumcision and Baptism

It must be admitted that circumcision and baptism do share certain things in common. These commonalities mostly flow from the fact that both are initiatory rites into covenants between God and man.⁶⁰ One would expect many similarities in this regard, however it cannot be maintained that baptism replaces circumcision as a covenant sign or carries the same spiritual meaning.⁶¹ They should be regarded as covenantal signs tied to different covenants.

First, to maintain that a “covenant of grace” has a continuity of an initiatory sign proves dubious. There has not always been a covenant sign. God’s promise went out in Genesis 3:15, yet no covenant sign existed to mark God’s people for hundreds of years. The sign of circumcision was instituted in Genesis 17 where it is clearly tied to the Abrahamic covenant and later, the Mosaic covenant. The promises which were signified by circumcision were not only salvific (as Booth’s list seems to suggest), but included national ones, particularly the land promise, and the promise of physical descendents; it marked a nation to prepare the way for the coming Christ. This was a unique time in redemptive history. Baptism certainly does not signify these promises. Second, one cannot find in Israel the idea that circumcision was only for “believers and their children” since many unbelieving Jews circumcised their infant boys and were considered part of the covenant nation.⁶² That circumcision was a national sign, not a sign for believers and their children demonstrates that its meaning is not continuous with baptism, not even in a spiritual sense. Third, in the OT, physical circumcision pointed to the need of spiritual circumcision, i.e., circumcision of the heart or regeneration (Deut 30:6).⁶³ Likewise, in Romans 2:25–29 Paul describes this same parallel. This clearly links circumcision as a type pointing to or finding fulfillment in regeneration, not baptism. Fourth, it is clear in the NT that circumcision is abrogated as a sign of membership into the people of God (Acts 15:1–35; Gal 1:6–9; 2:11–16; 6:15; 1 Cor 7:18–19).⁶⁴ Unlike circumcision, baptism is not a sign of physical or national descent, nor does it anticipate gospel realities. It is a sign that signifies union with Christ and all the benefits that are associated with that union. Related to this, if the paedobaptist position were true, Paul could have easily silenced the Judaizers by saying that circumcision was unnecessary because baptism has replaced it.⁶⁵

A Look at Colossians 2:11–12

The one text that appears most often to support the idea that baptism supersedes or replaces circumcision is Colossians 2:11–12:⁶⁶

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, 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.

This text does bring together both circumcision and baptism, however the connection is not between physical circumcision and baptism. The connection is between spiritual circumcision (i.e., regeneration), union with Christ and baptism.⁶⁷ First, it must be noted that “by the circumcision of Christ” refers to circumcision of the heart, i.e., regeneration.⁶⁸ Spiritual circumcision finds its fulfillment in being joined to Christ—the body of flesh is put off by union with Christ’s death through faith. Second, and most significant, in verse 12 it is clear that in baptism the realities of having died and made alive in Christ have already taken place: “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith.” This is not something that can be said of baptized infants. It seems best to conclude that in this text, as others mentioned above, physical circumcision pointed to regeneration or circumcision of the heart, whereas baptism testifies that these realities have actually occurred.⁶⁹ Therefore, it is crucial to note that Christian baptism has a different meaning than circumcision, what is signified in baptism cannot be said of circumcision.⁷⁰

Concluding the Case for Infant Baptism

The paedobaptist argument rests on the covenant of grace (applied to believers and their children) to provide an overarching unity which connects baptism with circumcision. However, the Abrahamic covenant was a national covenant, not one between believers and their seed. It now includes Abraham’s spiritual descendents through the true seed, Jesus Christ. In addition, contrary to what is often assumed, the Abrahamic covenant cannot be equated with the covenant of grace. Does the covenant of grace promise all believers a vast nation of physical descendents or the land of Canaan? It seems that neither the logic, nor the exegetical evidence can sustain the paedobaptist argument.⁷¹

The Case For Believer’s Baptism

It must be conceded that there is no direct command in Scripture to baptize only believers to the exclusion of believer’s children. This fact has caused some paedobaptists to accuse credobaptists of deducing their conclusions in the same manner as they do.⁷² While this is true to an extent, it is argued that the credobaptist position is a better deduction from Scripture given the problems with the paedobaptist position mentioned above. That is, rather than arguing from tenuous continuities between Old and New Testaments, it will be shown that there are multiple lines of evidence from both Old and New Testaments that support the credobaptist position.⁷³ It is to these lines of evidence that this paper now turns.

1. Commands Concerning Baptism

Baptism is a NT ordinance, commanded by Christ (Matt 28:18–20). He specifically commands that disciples, i.e., converts, are to be baptized (v. 19).⁷⁴ In the very next verse, Christ continues his command that these same disciples are to be taught all that he has commanded. Certainly such instructions are not applicable to infants. The same is also seen at Pentecost when Peter commands his listeners to repent and then be baptized (Acts 2:38). Again, this command cannot be applied to infants.

2. The Practice of the Early Church

This argument is not an argument from history, but an examination of the practice of baptism from its beginnings in the gospels to its expression through the book of Acts. The baptism of John seems to serve as a prototype for Christian baptism, which no one disputes was a baptism of repentance that necessarily excluded infants.⁷⁵ In Acts, after Peter’s sermon at Pentecost the Scriptures are clear that “those who received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41). This text explicitly states who were baptized that day, it was “those who received his word.” Later, when Philip preached the gospel in Samaria, “when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12; also 8:35–38).⁷⁶ It is clear that throughout the early church that baptism followed the pattern established at Pentecost of people hearing the word, repenting and believing, and then being baptized.⁷⁷

3. The Meaning or Symbolism of Baptism

While a full discussion of the meaning of baptism is not the purpose of this section, some brief notes on the issue are relevant to the argument concerning the recipients of baptism. Berkhof states that baptism symbolizes or “refers to the washing away of sin, Acts 2:38; I Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5, and to spiritual renewal, Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11, 12.”⁷⁸ Granting, for the sake of argument, that Berkhof is correct in what baptism symbolizes, the NT testifies that those who have the sign of baptism, also possess what the sign signifies. For example, in Galatians 3:27 Paul says, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” That is, all those who were baptized, have put on Christ. One could not say, “As many infants as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” since infants do not yet possess what the sign signifies.⁷⁹ Similarly, in Romans 6:3 Paul says, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?”⁸⁰ Certainly, infants who have received baptism cannot be said to have also been “raised with him through faith” since they are not yet old enough to express faith for themselves. These verses clearly demonstrate that those who have the sign were already recipients of what that sign signified.⁸¹ The NT says that all those who have been baptized, have been buried with Christ, have been raised with him through faith, and have put on Christ.⁸² Certainly by good and necessary inference, this limits the recipients of baptism to those who possess what the sign signifies, i.e., they are those in union with Christ through faith.

Conclusion

The bulk of this paper has been arguing against the continuities seen by the paedobaptist from OT to NT. This is due to the fact that such continuity arguments can be complicated to describe and respond to. The latter portion of the paper which examines the case for believer’s baptism is relatively brief since the evidence seems clear in the NT that baptism was commanded to be practiced on disciples and the evidence (including household baptisms) support that this practice was upheld by the early church. There is evidence of certain continuities between the two Testaments, but not to the extent that is required to support the doctrine of infant baptism. Understanding the proper discontinuities and the teaching of the NT clearly demonstrates that believer’s baptism is the biblical teaching on this important Christian ordinance.