If you have not read Parts 1 and 2 of this series, you are jumping in at an odd time. I would recommend going back and reading those two segments first—especially Part 2, as it lays the groundwork necessary for the conclusions I draw in this post. If you’re already caught up, feel free to proceed. 🙂
I argued in my previous post that infant baptism is alien to the NT and an accretion in the early church. If that is indeed true, then what are we to do with Paul’s correlation between baptism and circumcision in Colossians 2? I would like to contend that Paul does not actually correlate baptism to physical circumcision in this text. The text makes clear that the circumcision to which Paul refers is a circumcision “not performed by human hands” (2:11). It is worth quoting Thomas Schreiner at length here:
Paul does not establish a connection between physical circumcision and baptism, but spiritual circumcision and baptism. Indeed, he disavows emphatically any salvific efficacy in physical circumcision. A common problem in Israel is that people were physically circumcised but uncircumcised in heart (Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4; 9:23–24). What is necessary to belong to the redeemed people of God is a spiritual circumcision of the heart (Deut 30:6), which is promised in the new covenant work of God (Jer 31:31–34). Physical circumcision made one a member of Israel as God’s theocratic people, but it did not ensure that one was regenerate. Hence, the need for the spiritual circumcision of the heart.[1]
In Colossians, Paul conceptualizes baptism as constituting a spiritual, regenerative circumcision of the heart. Such a conception makes sense of (and I know I sound like a broken record here) the intimate relationship between faith, confession, repentance, and baptism in the NT. All of these elements coalesce into one package deal, one total conversion narrative. Baptism is an initiatory rite, but it is more than that. In baptism, we are united to Christ by faith and bodily participate in the gospel (Rom 6:1–11). We die to our old selves, being set free from sin and death, and are raised to newness of life. We repent, put off the old self, put on Christ, and become a new creature (cf. Acts 2:37–38; Eph 4:22–24, Gal 3:27, 2 Cor 5:17). We make a pledge to God (1 Pet 3:21), call on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16), and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), who then empowers us for continued discipleship and ministry. The faith, confession, and repentance that repeatedly animate this NT baptismal process are conspicuously absent in paedobaptism. It’s true that Acts 2:39 offers the promise of the Holy Spirit to all, including children, but this is not sufficient to defend paedobaptism. First, the promise is not only for children of believers but for ‘all who are far off’; and second, in context, the promise is explicitly conditioned upon repentance, baptism, and God’s calling (vv. 38–39).
Jesus’s comments about little children in the kingdom are deeply relevant to the conversation (Mark 10:13–16; Matt 19:13–15; Luke 18:15–17); but I do not think they demand a paedobaptistic theology. Timothy George’s simple observation is correct: “Jesus took a special interest in children, received them into his arms, and blessed them. He did not baptize them.”[2] In the gospels, we have no example of children being baptized by Jesus’s ministry. That said, Jesus is not shy about declaring that the kingdom of God belongs to little children. What are we to do with this? Admittedly, I’ve been frustrated in the past with the Bible’s seeming ambiguity around the ‘conversion’ of children; but I’ve recently begun to appreciate this gospel narrative as a powerful anchor for a proper ‘theology of children.’ Perhaps ‘conversion’ isn’t the right framework for thinking about the baptism of children. John Mark Hicks has spoken more at length about this here and here, and I would encourage my friends to read over his reflections; but I will loosely follow and borrow from those reflections in what follows.
I sometimes wonder if we in the Stone-Campbell Movement have so emphasized the saving nature of baptism that we have narrowed its scope and obscured some of its other functions and purposes. I still see baptism as normatively salvific; but if we look to Jesus as a model for baptism, we can begin to conceptualize baptism not merely as a transaction bringing one from ‘lost’ to ‘saved,’ or from ‘outsider’ to ‘insider,’ but as a climactic expression of faith and an initiation into public ministry. Jesus wasn’t coming to the water as someone lost and in need of salvation. As we’ve already observed in this brief study, he was coming as an already faithful servant of God, intending to publicly own and declare his faith and commit himself to kingdom ministry. As he rises from the water, he receives the Holy Spirit, who empowers and guides that ministry. I believe this foreshadows what happens at baptism for children brought up in the church. They are not coming as those who are lost, as outsiders. The kingdom already belongs to them; and, having been brought up in the church, they have lived as faithful disciples. They have been catechized and spiritually nurtured by their families and by the church throughout their upbringing. At baptism, however, they, like Jesus, assume personal ownership of their faith, publicly affirm their allegiance to the king, and devote themselves to kingdom ministry. Moreover, they receive the Holy Spirit, who empowers them for that ministry. This is not so much a process of converting, but a process of maturing.
This of course raises the question of original sin and how it functions in my theology. On this particular issue, I tend to follow in the tradition of Zwingli and the Anabaptists (which has since been adopted and adapted by many Restorationists, Baptists, Pentecostals, and Methodists). I affirm original sin insofar as I believe we inherit a corrupt nature that inescapably drives us to sin. In such a model, original sin is an inherited propensity to sin, not an inherited guilt for sin. I deny, however, the Augustinian model of original sin, according to which we are born in total depravity with an inherited guilt for Adam’s sin. Romans 5:12, properly translated, demonstrates that “death came to all people, because all sinned.” (Augustine read from a Latin translation of the New Testament that mistranslated the word ‘because’ and thus muddled the meaning of the passage). For Paul, condemnation is universal; but this is because in our corruption we inevitably emulate Adam and fall into sin ourselves—not because we inherit Adam’s guilt. Despite universal corruption, then, infants are still born innocent. They are loved, embraced, and enjoyed by Christ: “to such belongs the kingdom of God.” When an unbaptized child does eventually step into ‘lostness,’ I imagine it is not at some arbitrary ‘age of accountability,’ but at a more decisive and discernible point in time—as when his/her faith is lost, further discipleship is refused, and/or God is willfully rejected and sinned against continuously (Heb 10:26). If/when there is uncertainty, we can safely trust in God’s perfect and loving judgment.
I have only scratched the surface of this complex issue—but I hope that what I’ve written here has helped you to understand why I am still a credobaptist. With fear and trembling, I propose that paedobaptism—because it is detached from the kind of active faith that makes baptism efficacious (Col 2:11–12)—is erroneous, defective. To clarify, however, I would not go so far as to say that those baptized as infants cannot still experience regeneration, transformation, and/or salvation. Some on the more conservative side of my tradition would disagree with me on this point, so I’ll offer a very brief explanation for it:
From the early church to today, God has worked powerfully and unmistakably through the lives of many who were baptized as infants. I’ve seen this over and over again in my own life. God is perfectly capable of uniting faithful people to himself on the basis of his sovereign, loving will—even apart from his normative means and methods (e.g., the thief on the cross in Luke 23:39–43; or Cornelius in Acts 10–11, who experiences regeneration through the Spirit prior to baptism). God can (and does) work outside of the neat and tidy systems we’re sometimes tempted to box him into. And we see on several occasions that his grace is sufficient to account for honest-hearted mistakes.[3] (I am thankful to God for this, as I know I am prone to error.) When Hezekiah celebrated Passover in the wrong month and the unclean people “ate the Passover contrary to what was written” (2 Chron. 30:18), they were still healed and pardoned because they had set their hearts on seeking God (vv. 19–20; cf. 2 Chron. 31:21). Scripture overwhelmingly portrays God as one who is attentive to the heart, as one who desires ‘mercy over sacrifice’ (i.e., hesed over ritual; Hos 6:6). Jesus himself reiterates this theological principle in the context of his Sabbath controversy with the Pharisees (Matt 12:1–8). Of course, rituals and regulations are far from unimportant; and baptism should be practiced according to God’s design. We should never intentionally neglect or distort what God has designed and prescribed for us. But I do not imagine this is what the vast majority of paedobaptists are doing when they practice paedobaptism. More often than not, the paedobaptist has his/her heart set on seeking God and obeying his will; and this is simply a matter of non-rebellious, honest-hearted interpretive difference. Consequently, I could never flatly and confidently deny the regeneration or salvation of those baptized as infants. Who am I to place boundaries on God’s loving grace and mercy, or to insist that ‘man was made for baptism, not baptism for the man’?
Even so, given what I have argued throughout this series, I am committed to preaching Christian baptism as the normative means of regeneration for all penitent believers who make a credible profession of faith. If you were baptized as an infant, I would encourage you to experience the fullness of baptism by being immersed as a conscious act of faithful discipleship—not because I believe your walk of faith has been invalid to this point, but precisely because it is valid. Believer’s baptism is the proper, climactic expression of an authentic faith. By grace, baptism is made effectual through such faith. I see the beauty and significance in dedicating a child to God, and I would never wish to minimize the grace of Christian communities who baptize infants and raise them in the knowledge of the Lord. In fact, we credobaptists can afford to be much more intentional about our collective responsibility to the children born into our churches—to their spiritual care, nourishment, and development. We can learn much from our paedobaptist siblings in this regard. Nevertheless, I have become convinced that God graciously promises to meet those in baptism who enter the water in conscious, penitent faith.
Thanks for reading this series! For more resources on this issue, from both major perspectives, check out the following resources:
Multi-View Books:
- David F. Wright, ed. Baptism: Three Views. Spectrum Multiview Book Series. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.
- John H. Armstrong, ed. Understanding Four Views on Baptism. Counterpoints: Church Life. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.
Works Defending Paedobaptism:
- Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997. §1250–1252.
- Hyde, Daniel R. Why Do We Baptize Infants? Basics of the Reformed Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007.
- Jeremias, Joachim. Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries. Translated by David Cairns. London: SCM, 1960.
- McKnight, Scot It Takes a Church to Baptize: What the Bible Says about Infant Baptism. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2018.
- Strawbridge, Gregg, ed. The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003.
Works Defending Credobaptism:
- Aland, Kurt. Did the Early Church Baptize Infants? The Library of History and Doctrine. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray. London: SCM, 1963.
- Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
- Hicks, John Mark, and Greg Taylor. Down in the River to Pray: Revisioning Baptism as God’s Transforming Work. Siloam Springs, AR: Leafwood, 2004.
- Jewett, Paul K. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
- Schreiner, Thomas R., and Shawn D. Wright, eds. Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. NAC Studies in Bible and Theology 2. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006.
[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Baptism in the Epistles: An Initiation Rite For Believers” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn Wright (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006), 78. Emphasis original. Consider also the exegesis by Bates, Beyond the Salvation Wars, 164–67.
[2] Timothy George, “The Reformed Doctrine of Believers’ Baptism,” Interpretation 47, no. 3 (July 1993): 252.
[3] I am indebted to John Mark Hicks and Greg Taylor for much of the argument that follow. See John Mark Hicks and Greg Taylor, Down in the River to Pray, rev. ed., Kindle ed. (Abilene, TX: Leafwood Publishers, 2021), locs. 2357–2552.
Jared Dale Greer 
Leave a comment