Question: Some verses seem to speak specifically to infant baptism (i.e. Acts 2:39, 1 Cor. 7:14, Col. 2:11-12). What do you make of these scriptures and others which address this issue? What is your view on infant baptism in general?
Nate’s Answer:
1) Acts 2:38-39: Implicit in Peter’s call is that only those who could respond would respond. In other words, this is not a treatise on “infant baptism,” but a call to salvation in Christ. The promise of the Holy Spirit was potentially for all people in all places for all time forward - even those people outside an earshot from Peter’s sermon that day - whom God would call. If babies hear the call of God then they should repent of their sin and turn to Jesus, [but as infants they are unable to do so].
2) 1 Cor. 7:12-14: Neither is this text specifically addressing infant baptism, but marriage issues. Nevertheless, is Paul actually suggesting that unbelieving spouses and children inherit salvation through a believing partner? That would be ridiculous, completely anti-Pauline (1 Cor. 1:30, 6:11) in his understanding of the concept of “sanctification.” But then what does he mean by “sanctified through” and “holy” in v. 14? It bears longer study and there are many different explanantions of varying complexity. Personally, I believe the best answers center around God’s regard and the believing spouse’s hope: that God views the unbelieving spouse through the lens of the believing spouse’s sanctified state such that hope is held out for the eventual conversion of the unbelieving spouse. It is actually an expression of God’s temporarily sustaining grace: while not automatically extending salvation, God is kindly mindful of both the unbelieving spouse and children due to His commitment to the believing spouse. In fact, the marriage should be maintained upon these grounds of temporary blessing to the family, even though the unbelieving members of the family are unconscious of God’s nonsalvific blessing. But again, discussion regarding infant baptism doesn’t really fit here.
3) Colossians 2:11-12: Again, this is Paul speaking to the nature of our salvation. In this third text, unlike the first two, I fail to see how children or infants are especially included. Yes, Paul mentions circumcision, but in that it is a spiritual circumcision in response to the faith in Christ we express, it does not refer to the physical circumcision of infant boys any longer - and that is his whole point!
Here’s the bottom line for me: I have yet to find any passage in the Bible that clearly advocates for infant baptism. Meanwhile, its practice can be confusing, suggesting to parents that in it they are conferring salvation to children. That sort of false hope is dangerous for all concerned – eternal destiny is at stake.
Thank you Nate. Amazing how this is coming to me right now. I just started struggling with this and spoke to Pastor Terry about it a week or so ago. I was baptized as an infant and I have been feeling a sense of desire to be baptized as an adult – so that it is my decision instead of the decision my parents made for me. I really enjoyed your thoughts. Thank you.
I disagree with Nate’s conclusions about infant baptism based on these three verses. I believe the answer to this issue lies in a broader discussion about the differences and similarities between the Old and New Covenants, and I would make three quick points to state the case:
1) Children were part of the Old Covenant and were given the covenant sign (circumscision) to indicate this.
2) While baptism is not exactly like circumscision, it is clear in the New Testament that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. It would seem that without a direct command to exclude children that the default understanding of the Jews would have been an inclusive view of their infants in God’s covenant.
3) Much attention is given in the New Testament to the differences between the Old and New Covenants, as this was an epoch shift for Jews. Luke carefully lays out baptismal stories about women and Gentiles to show that the covenant sign was expanding. Paul spends entire letters hashing out the misunderstandings between the old Mosaic Law and the new kingdom ordered around Jesus. Yet in all these carefully outlined differences between the Old and the New, there is never a discussion in the New Testament about excluding children from the covenant. If there were indeed a shift from a familial to an individual covenant that shift would have been drastic and would have definitely spurred debate amongst the apostles and new Christians. We have no record that those debates ever happened.
I realize this is an argument from silence, but if you were a first century Jew who already believed your children were part of God’s covenant, you would not need to be told that your children are part of a new and better covenant.
I don’t mean to be argumentative and much more could be said on these issues, so I hope this can be seen as a conversation starter.