In this blog series, Deeper, I look at a theological or biblical topic more deeply and see how it applies to our lives. Today I will be looking at the topic of infant baptism.
As a Southern Baptist pastor, I do not believe that infant baptism is biblical. However, there are some wonderful pastors from other denominations that do believe in infant baptism. Just this week, I was reading one of my favorite commentaries, while preparing for my sermon on Genesis 17, and the author spent an entire section talking about why infant baptism is a biblical practice. So it’s very likely that if you are new to Island Pond, or come from a different theological background, you may be confused about why some churches baptize infants and others do not.
Why Some Believe in Infant Baptism
The argument for infant baptism stems from Genesis 17:7-14. In these verses, God establishes his covenant with Abraham and commands that everyone be circumcised. Circumcision was to be seen as a covenant sign. However, it was not just the adults who were to get circumcised. Everyone — adults and children — were to have it done. This demonstrates that children are included in the covenant community.
Then, in the New Testament, we are told that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of the covenant. Paul writes, “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” (Colossians 2:11-12).
There are also passages in Acts where entire families are told to get baptized. Acts 16 is one of the most prominent passages. A Philippian jailer sees the power of God and believes in him. He then asks Paul and Silas what he should do to be saved. “And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household’” (Acts 16:31). And that is exactly what they did. “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family” (Acts 16:33). The assumption is that the “household” included children, and if it did, that supports the idea of infant baptism.
Both circumcision and baptism signify entrance into God’s covenant community, pointing to God’s promises and the need for faith. Just as infants in Abraham’s household received the sign of the covenant, those who support the idea of infant baptism believe that children of believers today should also be baptized.
Why We Do Not Believe in Infant Baptism
If the above argument sounds compelling, then why do we (as Southern Baptists) not believe in infant baptism? I want to give you several reasons why.
1. Circumcision and baptism have similarities, but are not the same.
While circumcision and baptism have similarities, they cannot be used in identical ways. Like many actions in the Old Testament, there is a present AND future reality. Often the present reality (from the perspective of someone in the Old Testament) is a picture of the greater future reality. This is also the case with circumcision and baptism. Circumcision is a present reality (again, from the OT perspective) and baptism is the greater future reality that is fulfilled through Jesus Christ. So while baptism does replace circumcision, it is not identical to circumcision in what it represents.
Another example of this idea would be animal sacrifices. In the Old Testament, people sacrificed animals. It is built in to the OT law and is a way that people temporarily covered their sins and repaired their relationship with god. Once Jesus died on the cross, animal sacrifices were no longer needed because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. So animal sacrifice was a present OT reality that was later fulfilled in a greater way through Jesus’ sacrifice. His sacrifice replaced (fulfilled) the need for animal sacrifices. But since he fulfilled it, his sacrifice does not follow the same set of rules as the first picture, animal sacrifices.
Circumcision in the Old Testament was a physical sign of belonging to the Abrahamic covenant, which was both spiritual and national (Israel as a chosen nation). It marked inclusion in the community of Israel but did not guarantee personal faith or salvation. It was a picture of what was the come.
Baptism in the New Testament, however, is a public declaration of personal faith in Jesus Christ, symbolizing repentance, forgiveness of sins, and new life in Christ (Romans 6:4). It is not a physical sign of national identity but a response to an individual’s personal decision to trust in Christ. This picture is a greater reality that has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Therefore, it has similarities to circumcision but is not identical with it.
2. The New Covenant comes from faith, not descent.
Since the practice of infant baptism strongly leans on the idea of covenants, it is important to understand the new covenant in the New Testament.
The New Covenant comes from what Jesus did on the cross. Through his death and resurrection, he initiated the new covenant. Through this new covenant, there is no longer a physical connection, like in the Old Testament, but a spiritual connection.
Quoting parts of Jeremiah 31:31-34, the author of Hebrews writes:
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.” (Hebrews 8:10-12)
Again, it is no longer about whether you are physically connected to Israel because now we are spiritually connected through Jesus Christ! People who have put their faith in Jesus have been circumcised in the heart (see Colossians 2:11-12) and the inward spiritual transformation replaces the need for a an outward physical transformation.
The covenant sign of circumcision included infants as part of a national identity. However, the church under the new covenant is made up of believers—those who have personally experienced salvation through Christ (see Acts 2:41-47).
The sign of the new covenant is no longer circumcision, but baptism (communion is also mentioned as a sign of the new covenant). It is reserved for those who are already part of the covenant community by faith. This is different than circumcision, which was a prerequisite for membership in the old covenant community.
If you would like to read more about covenants, I encourage you to read Romans 4, Galatians 3, and Colossians 2.
3. In the New Testament, baptism always comes after a proclamation of faith.
I have already talked about how baptism and circumcision are different, but now I want to focus on how baptism was carried out. In the book of Acts, we ALWAYS see people getting baptized after they have put their faith in Jesus. For example…
Acts 2:41: “So those who received his word were baptized…”
Acts 8:12: “But 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.”
Then in Acts 16:31-33, the the Philippian jailer and his household believed, and then they were baptized.
If you remember, Acts 16 is actually one of the passages some use to support the idea baptism. This comes from the jailer AND his household getting baptized. The thing is, the ages of those in his family are never given. It’s possible — even probable — that someone like the jailer, who was in a supervisory type position, was older. He could have had adult children. Or they could have been children ages 7, 9, 11, and 12, all ages that are old enough to make a profession of faith as well. I don’t know! But with the passage leaving enough room for other possibilities (such as the ones I proposed), combined with the clarity of other passages on only believers getting baptized, we should not automatically assume that Acts 16 supports the idea of infant baptism.
In conclusion
Genesis 17 and the practice of circumcision come out of the old covenant given to Abraham. This old covenant was fulfilled and transformed by the coming of Christ, who then established the new covenant. Baptism now replaces circumcision but it is not a direct “one for one” replacement. Baptism replaces it as Jesus’ fulfillment of the Old Testament law. And as we see in the New Testament, baptism always takes place AFTER a profession of faith, not before. Therefore, infant baptism is not supported by Genesis 17 or the broader teaching of Scripture.