Christian parents want their children to know God from an early age, grow up in the church, and eventually become disciples of Jesus. I believe Christians who support and oppose infant baptism largely share this hope.
But should children be baptized before they have come to believe in Jesus? Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and many Reformed and Presbyterian churches practice infant baptism, although their theological explanations differ.
I have recently revisited this question, particularly through John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion and Scot McKnight’s It Takes a Church to Baptize. Both take seriously God’s promises, circumcision in the Old Testament, and the community of faith. Yet I believe our starting point must be the New Testament itself.
What does the New Testament teach about baptism? Does it explicitly record the baptism of infants? And if not, are the other arguments sufficient? This is more than a historical or exegetical debate. If someone baptized as an infant later comes to believe in Christ, repents, and wishes to be baptized, but is told that baptism cannot be repeated, infant baptism has effectively replaced that person’s opportunity to be baptized upon faith. That is my central concern.
1. What Does the New Testament Teach about Baptism?
At Pentecost, Peter preached Jesus Christ and called his hearers to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, with the promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38–39). Luke then reports that those who received his message were baptized (Acts 2:41). Peter did not present baptism as a ritual detached from a response to the gospel.
The pattern appears elsewhere: men and women in Samaria believed Philip’s message and were baptized (Acts 8:12); Crispus and his household believed, and many Corinthians who heard the message believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8).
Paul also connects faith and baptism to new life in Christ. In Galatians 3:26–29, believers are children of God through faith in Christ, are baptized into Christ, and belong to Abraham’s offspring as heirs of the promise. Paul does not identify a parent’s faith as the basis for declaring that a child has already entered Christ.
In Colossians 2:11–12, circumcision, baptism, burial and resurrection with Christ, and faith belong to the same argument. Baptism is not merely a public symbol added after salvation; it is closely connected with union with Christ and participation in his death and resurrection. Yet Paul also expressly speaks of faith. See my Chinese articles on Romans 6 and baptism and salvation by faith and baptism.
If the New Testament consistently connects faith, repentance, and baptism, what warrants baptizing someone before that person believes? Supporters of infant baptism need to answer this question.
2. Does the New Testament Record the Baptism of Infants?
Accounts of entire households being baptized are frequently cited: Lydia’s household and the Philippian jailer’s household in Acts 16, and the household of Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 1:16. But these passages do not explicitly tell us whether there were infants in those households.
We should not assume that every household necessarily included infants, nor should we claim that no infants were present. Even if infants were present, the text does not explicitly say that they were baptized. We must not pretend to know what Scripture does not tell us.
There is an important distinction, however. The New Testament does give positive accounts of people hearing the gospel, believing, repenting, and being baptized. It does not give an equally explicit account of infant baptism. I therefore believe the church should ground its practice in what the New Testament clearly teaches rather than in unrecorded infants who might have been present.
Still, the strongest arguments for infant baptism do not rest on household accounts alone. They appeal to circumcision, the promises to Abraham, and the place of believers’ children within the church.
3. Infants Were Circumcised in the Old Testament. Should They Therefore Be Baptized in the New?
God explicitly commanded that male infants in Abraham’s household be circumcised on the eighth day (Genesis 17:10, 12). They did not first need to understand God’s promise or profess personal faith. This was God’s own arrangement.
In Institutes IV.16, Calvin argues that circumcision and baptism, despite their different outward forms, share spiritual significance: God’s promise, forgiveness, and regeneration. He therefore reasons that if infants received circumcision under the old covenant, believers’ infants should receive baptism under the new. Scot McKnight likewise emphasizes the church, believing families, and God’s promises, rather than reducing baptism to an individual decision.
But an important difference remains. The Old Testament explicitly commanded infant circumcision. The New Testament repeatedly connects baptism with receiving the gospel, faith, and repentance. Colossians 2:11–12, even as it discusses circumcision and baptism together, speaks of faith.
A supporter of infant baptism may rightly observe that Acts largely describes adult conversions and therefore does not, by itself, rule out baptizing believers’ infants. I agree: those accounts alone do not prove that infant baptism must be wrong.
There is another point. In the apostolic period, Jews who had already been circumcised still needed to believe in Christ, repent, and be baptized when they heard the gospel (Acts 2:38–41). Nor did becoming Christian mean that Jews necessarily stopped practicing circumcision: Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3), and Jewish believers continued to observe the law (Acts 21:20–24). Calvin’s claim is not that circumcision became forbidden, but that baptism took over its role as a sign of God’s covenant with his people.
If circumcised Jews still had to believe in Christ, repent, and be baptized to enter the new covenant, why should infants who have not yet expressed faith receive new-covenant baptism on the basis of the Old Testament command concerning circumcision?
Galatians 3 explains that we become God’s children through faith in Christ and Abraham’s offspring by belonging to him. Paul’s emphasis is on the spiritual transformation found in Christ, not an instruction to baptize infants according to the age specified for circumcision.
Calvin also appeals to Jesus’ welcome of children (Institutes IV.16.7), asking why children should be excluded from baptism. But we are not proposing that believers’ children be excluded from the church or permanently denied baptism. We welcome them, teach them the gospel, and hope that they will personally believe, repent, and be baptized. The question is whether the New Testament directs us to baptize them before they believe. The continuity between the two covenants does not settle that question.1
4. “The Promise Is for You and for Your Children”
Acts 2:39 is another frequently cited text. Peter says the promise is for his hearers, their children, and those far away—all whom the Lord calls. Does this mean believers’ children should be baptized as infants? I do not think that inference follows.
Peter does not instruct his listeners to bring their infants for baptism. The promise also reaches people far away and is framed by God’s calling. The immediate context matters: Peter calls for repentance and baptism in verse 38, and Luke reports in verse 41 that those who received his message were baptized. A promise extending to the next generation does not itself establish baptism before faith.
5. Are Believers’ Children “Holy,” and Therefore Eligible for Baptism?
In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul calls both the unbelieving spouse and the children of a believer “holy.” His subject is whether a Christian should remain married to an unbelieving spouse, not the qualifications for baptism.
If calling children holy establishes their eligibility for baptism, why does the same description not establish the unbelieving spouse’s eligibility? Imagine a couple with an infant: the husband comes to faith and is baptized, while the wife does not believe. The church should welcome both wife and child into its life and care. But must either be baptized first to receive that welcome?
A defender of infant baptism might distinguish the covenant status of a believer’s child from that of an unbelieving spouse. Yet we still need to ask whether the New Testament explicitly makes that distinction for baptism, or whether it is inferred from circumcision and covenant continuity. Welcoming someone into the life of the church is not identical to judging that person ready for Christian baptism.
6. The Difference between the Old and New Covenants
Reformed arguments for infant baptism emphasize God’s covenant with Abraham and continuity between the covenants. But we must also take seriously what the New Testament says is distinctive about the new covenant.
Hebrews 8:10–11, drawing on Jeremiah 31, speaks of God writing his law upon his people’s hearts and of their knowing him. This does not mean Christians no longer need teaching, or that every person associated with a church genuinely knows God. It does emphasize inward knowledge of God, faith in Christ, and God’s work in the heart.
The new covenant was established by God through Christ, not created by our faith. Yet people receive its promises and enter Christ through faith. Reformed theology often distinguishes the visible church from those who are truly regenerate, allowing believers’ children to be baptized before they personally believe.
But has the New Testament authorized the church to baptize a child simply because that child was born into a Christian family? The apostles knew believing families and instructed children within them (Ephesians 6:1–4; Colossians 3:20–21). Nevertheless, there is no explicit apostolic instruction to baptize infants, while baptism is repeatedly associated with faith and repentance. An analogy with circumcision does not, in my judgment, overturn that pattern.
7. Can Infants Believe in Christ?
Church traditions that baptize infants answer this differently. Lutherans, for example, affirm that God can give infants faith through his Word and Spirit. On this understanding, infant baptism is not necessarily baptism without faith.
But Romans 10:14–17 closely links faith with hearing the message of Christ, believing, and calling on the Lord. If infants cannot yet understand the gospel they hear, what grounds do we have for saying they possess the faith Paul describes here? I do not deny that God has the power to give faith to an infant. But divine ability does not establish that God necessarily gives faith through infant baptism. Does the New Testament teach that he does?
8. Does Jesus’ Welcome of Children Support Infant Baptism?
Mark 10:13–16 describes people bringing children to Jesus, the disciples rebuking them, and Jesus responding with indignation. He welcomed the children, took them in his arms, and blessed them.
Calvin appeals to this passage in arguing that believers’ children should not be excluded from baptism. But Jesus’ welcome of children and a command for the church to baptize infants are different claims.
Jesus welcomed and blessed these children without their having been baptized, and he did not instruct the disciples to baptize them. If he could welcome and bless them before baptism, why use his welcome as proof that the church ought to baptize infants?
Of course, the absence of a baptismal command in this particular episode does not prove that infant baptism is wrong. This is not a comprehensive teaching on Christian baptism. But neither should Jesus’ welcome of children be presented as direct evidence that he endorsed infant baptism. The welcome is explicit; the baptismal inference is not.
9. When Infant Baptism Replaces Baptism upon Faith
This is my deepest concern. Imagine someone baptized as an infant who grows up without genuinely believing in Christ, perhaps even leaving the church. Years later, this person hears the gospel anew, comes to faith, repents, and wants to follow Jesus as a disciple. But the church responds: “You have already been baptized. You cannot be baptized again.”
Ephesians 4:5 does speak of “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Its concern is Christian unity. It does not directly answer whether baptism administered before personal faith is the baptism taught in the New Testament.
Supporters of infant baptism regard it as valid Christian baptism; subsequent personal faith receives or confirms God’s promise. On that view, rebaptism is unnecessary. But this is precisely what must be established. We cannot simply assume the validity of infant baptism and then invoke “one baptism” to prevent someone who has come to faith from being baptized.
Acts 19:4–5 distinguishes John’s baptism from baptism in the name of Jesus. That is not the same issue as infant baptism, and we should not pretend otherwise. It does show, however, that having undergone something called baptism does not automatically settle whether one has received Christian baptism.
The issue is not whether water was applied in a religious ceremony, but whether that ceremony corresponds to New Testament baptism. If Scripture repeatedly joins faith, repentance, and baptism, why should a person be prevented from receiving baptism when they finally believe and repent? A practice largely inferred from circumcision and the place of families within the community may end up denying the person an opportunity to be baptized upon faith. This consequence deserves serious examination.
10. When Did the Early Church Begin Baptizing Infants?
A long-standing tradition does not automatically prove apostolic origin. We need to distinguish historical evidence from theological conclusions.
Around AD 200, Tertullian discussed the baptism of young children in On Baptism, chapter 18, and advised delay. He wanted children to grow and learn about Christ, and he was concerned about sponsors’ promises and responsibility for sins committed after baptism. His reasoning is not identical to modern believers’ baptism: concern about post-baptismal sin also led him to recommend delay for some adults. His testimony nonetheless shows that young-child baptism was practiced and disputed.
In the mid-third century, Cyprian of Carthage and other North African bishops responded to Fidus on whether infants must wait until the eighth day after birth to be baptized. They concluded that waiting was unnecessary. Cyprian emphasized that God’s grace should not be withheld and that infants also needed forgiveness and grace. Tertullian and Cyprian therefore reached strikingly different pastoral judgments.
Origen also claimed that the church received infant baptism as a tradition from the apostles. This is significant early testimony, but a claim of apostolic origin is not the same as independent first-century evidence that the apostles commanded the practice.
We cannot claim infant baptism first appeared in the Middle Ages. Nor can we conclude merely from its third-century presence that the apostles commanded it. Historical evidence illuminates the practice’s early development; it does not replace New Testament teaching.
For related questions, see Are We Born Guilty Because of Adam’s Sin? Rethinking the Doctrine of Original Sin and Are Infants/Children Sinless?. For the distinct question of the mode of baptism rather than its recipients, see On Sprinkling Baptism: Is It Biblical?.
11. How Should the Church Treat Believers’ Children?
Opposing infant baptism does not mean that believers’ children have no place in the church. I believe we should welcome them, help them grow in a community of faith, teach them Scripture, and surround them with care and friendship.
The church can celebrate and support families in practical ways. For example, our church holds baby showers for members expecting a child, offering gifts and blessings. Welcoming a child into the life of the church, however, is different from administering Christian baptism.
We want children to know God from an early age, and we hope that one day they will personally believe in Jesus, repent, be baptized, and become his disciples. Faith can be passed on as a heritage, but one person’s faith cannot substitute for another’s.
12. Conclusion: Why Not Wait until a Child Believes?
Having revisited infant baptism, I remain convinced that the church should follow the pattern presented in the New Testament: teach people to believe in Christ, repent, and be baptized.
The New Testament does not explicitly record an infant baptism. Its main supporting arguments are theological inferences drawn from circumcision, God’s promises, and the place of believing families in the church. I do not think those inferences sufficiently establish that the church should baptize people before they believe.
I do not deny that God’s grace can reach believers’ children, or that the church should nurture them. But parents’ faith should not be treated as their children’s own. Nor should a disputed infant baptism be used to refuse baptism to someone who later genuinely comes to faith in Christ.
I have discussed the question of receiving baptism after a previous baptism in my Chinese article Can Someone Who Was Baptized Before Be Baptized Again?. The central question is not whether a person has experienced a ritual called baptism, but whether it was the Christian baptism taught in the New Testament.
If the New Testament repeatedly connects faith, repentance, and baptism, why baptize children before they believe—especially when doing so may later prevent them from being baptized upon faith? I hope believers’ children will grow up knowing God and one day personally believe, repent, and be baptized. That is not excluding them. It is hoping that they will truly become disciples of Jesus.
Note
1. Circumcision under the old covenant was performed only on males, yet Israelite women who were not circumcised also belonged to God’s covenant people (Genesis 17:10–14; Deuteronomy 29:10–12). The covenant sign was therefore not personally received by every member of the covenant people. This does not by itself disprove infant baptism, but it reminds us that theological connections between circumcision and baptism do not automatically establish identical recipients. ↩
References
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, chapters 15–16, especially chapter 16; Scot McKnight, It Takes a Church to Baptize: What the Bible Says about Infant Baptism (Brazos Press, 2018).
Tertullian, On Baptism, chapter 18; Cyprian, Letter to Fidus (often numbered Letter 64, elsewhere 58); Origen, Commentary on Romans 5.9.
Original Chinese article: 嬰兒需要受洗嗎？——當嬰兒洗禮取代了信而受洗.