Conversion of a Credobaptist
This might ruffle some feathers.
Like most (if not all) Western Evangelicals I was baptized when I was a bit older (for me at 16). While I made a profession of faith at 4 or 5 years old, general practice was not until someone was a bit older to make the public declaration. As a baby I had been dedicated with my twin brother at just a couple years old. My parents publicly stating that they would raise my brother and I in the ways of the Lord. At some points I would hear of “babies being baptized”, but it was always with suspicion, mostly talking about Roman Catholics. Baptism is really just a sign, a public confession when you want to let other people know that you are following Jesus, and is only for those who can make that conscience decision to follow Him.
And up until about 6 months ago I have held to that position as well.
I want to take you though a truncated journey of my conversion from a credo-baptist (a.k.a believers baptism) to a paedo-baptist (infant baptism). This is a journey that I never thought I would go on, but as I have delved into Scripture, taking into account as well the history and practice of the Church it became increasingly evident there was more to the story than I was told. As someone in the Wesleyan tradition I am going to use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to help frame my journey and discovery. Before I get into the weed I want to express a few qualifiers.
I am in the Free Methodist Church, a denomination that allows for both infant baptism, and infant dedication. As someone who will be ordained in the near future, I am agreeable to perform both infant baptism and dedication. This is not something I am not dogmatic on, and am willing to do both.
Secondly, I have no ill-will to my credo-baptist brothers and sisters. I do not believe that mode of baptism is a tier-one issue. While I believe (as I will explain) infant baptism is a more grounded practice, it does not invalidate other forms of baptism. Actually, for someone who has never been a follower of Christ needs to be baptized (as is shown in Scripture). But for those who have kids in the Church I feel infant baptism is the best course of action.
Next, part of the discussion hinges on our definition and discussion of sacraments. While my Roman Catholic brothers & sisters believe there are 7, I as a Protestant practice the two of baptism and the Eucharist (the Lord’s Supper). There are some in more Anabaptist circles who refrain from terminology such as sacrament, and prefer to use “ordinance” Over the last several years I have become more aware of the huge importance that sacraments plats in the life of the Church. They are more than just ways we remember things. Sacraments, as John Wesley spoke of them are a means of grace, by which God through the enables and strengthens the Christian in holiness. We so often focus on what WE do when we practice the sacraments, rather than focusing on what GOD does in and through them. While yes baptism is a public declaration of our allegiance to Christ, Scripture also is very clear as to God’s work through the at of baptism (Colossians 2:6-13). I am working on a blog post about sacraments, and the Eucharist specifically, so wait for that.
Finally, this post is not wholly exhaustive. Between references to Scripture and tradition there is more than I could cover here and would love to individually connect with anyone who has questions.
Scripture: Likely one of the strongest cases from Scripture for infant baptism is how baptism is the new circumcision. In the Old Testament the sign of being apart of God’s people was the sign of circumcision. Every male was to be circumcised, so people would know they were apart of the family of Abraham. This of course after the initial act by Abraham was performed on all male infants. Physical circumcision then continued to be the sign for God’s people up until the coming of Christ.
In the book of Acts we have numerous stories of baptisms taking place. It of course tracks that adults who became followers of Christ would be baptized, as the initiatory sacrament into the Church. And during a number of these instances there is reference to that person and their entire household being baptized. Religion being a familial thing, it would make sense that all in a family would be baptized into the community of Christ as a sign of new life in Him.
Here is a helpful list of comparisons of baptism and circumcision from Phillip Kayser that is very comprehensive, and I appreciate not having to compile the entirety of the Scriptural references.
Meaning |
Circumcision |
Baptism |
Both are a sign |
Gen. 17:11, Rom 4:11 |
Rom. 4:11-12 |
Both are a seal |
Rom. 4:11 |
Rom. 4:11-12; 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13,30; 2 Tim. 2:19; Rev. 7:2-8; 9:4 |
Initiate membership into the covenant community |
Gen. 17:14; 21:4; Lev. 12:3 |
Eph. 2:12; 1 Cor. 12:13 |
Both symbolize regeneration |
Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4 |
John 3:5; Col. 2:13; Tit. 3:5 |
Point to justification by faith |
Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12; Rom. 2:25-29; Phil. 3:3 |
Acts 8:37; 2:38 |
Cleansing from defilement |
Jer. 4:4; Lev. 26:14 |
1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 7:14 |
For those who are “set apart” by a parent’s relationship to God |
Ezra 9:2; Is. 6:13; Mal. 2:15 |
1 Cor. 7:14 |
Both point to the need to die to the world (“Egypt”) and enter into new life |
Josh. 5:2-9 |
Romans 6:3-4 |
Both point to union with God |
Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Gal. 3:16,29; Gen. 17:7-8; Col. 2:11 |
Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1-8 |
Both point to the need for an inner spiritual experience, namely spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism |
Rom. 2:28-29; Jer. 4:4 |
1 Pet. 3:21 |
Both were placed on whole households |
Gen. 17:10,23-27 |
Acts 16:15,33; 1 Cor. 1:16 |
Both were a sign and seal of the covenant of grace |
Gen. 17:9-14; Deut. 30:6; Rom. 4:11 |
Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12 |
Both point to remission of sins |
Deut. 30:6; Col. 2:13 |
Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Col. 2:13 |
Both oblige the recipient to walk in newness of life |
Gen. 17:9; Deut. 10:12-16 |
Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Cor. 7:14 |
Neither one saves or benefits a person automatically (ex opera operato) |
Jer. 9:25; Rom. 2:25-29 |
Acts 8:13-24; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:29 |
People can be saved without either one |
Ex. 3:1; Rom. 4:10; Josh 5:1-12; John was saved (Luke 1:44,47) before circumcision (v. 59); so too Jer. 1:4; Ps. 22:9,10; 2 Sam. 12:15-23; 1 Kings 14:13 |
Luke 23:43; Acts 10:2-47; see implication of verses under circumcision. |
Both are given to children |
Gen. 17:10,12,14; Luke 1:59 |
Acts 2:39; 16:15,33; 1 Cor. 7:14; Gal. 4:1-2 in context of baptism of heirs in 3:26-29 |
It is not lawful to give to a child if both parents are unbelievers |
Josh. 5:1-12 shows that children of unbelieving generation were not allowed to be circumcised |
1 Cor. 7:14-16; Acts 2:39 |
Both signs were given to non-elect children of believers |
Gen. 17:19-25 with Gal. 4:21-31; Gen. 25:34; Rom. 9:13 |
Acts 8:13-24; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:29 |
Both signs were usually only administered once |
|
Eph. 4:5; also the implication of 1 Cor. 7:18; Tit. 3:5; Acts 8:22-23 |
It is a sin to neglect this sign |
Gen. 17:14; Ex. 4:24-26 |
Luke 7:30 with Matt. 21:23-27; 28:19; John 3:5; Acts 10:47-48 |
Tradition: Simply put, up until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500’s, infant baptism was the universal practice of the Church. When we look to the early Church Fathers it is nearly unanimous that infant baptism was the practice since the early Church (as early as 100AD). Justin Martyr, Origen, Lactantius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gergory Nazianzen, Augustine, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Cyprian and many many more Church fathers attest to infant baptism being the mode of the Church for the children of believing parents. Of course this did not exclude new converts to the faith, who would be baptized into Christ (be they Jew or Gentile).
It was only until the radical reformers who questioned this practiced. But aside from these, all the main reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Arminius, Cranmer) upheld the legitimacy of the practice of the standard.
Reason: Some may ask, “wasn’t Jesus dedicated, and so because of that children should be as well.” This is true, Jesus was dedicated as an infant. But heres the thing, the New Covenant had not been initiated yet. There was no death of Christ to be baptized into. It cannot be denied that Jesus would have been circumcised coming from a Jewish family. In the Jewish mindset, baptism was an act of purification, bit did not represent the distinction that circumcision does until after the death and resurrection of Christ.
Now that we are in the New Covenant, is it not also reasonable that we want to signify that our children are in fact apart of God’s people? We don’t believe that our kids are little pagans running around until they make a decision to follow Jesus. Yes, infants who are baptized should when they are ready to, either affirm their baptism, or be confirmed as a sign of living their life in line with their baptism.
Another aspect we should also consider is the very individualistic culture that we are in living in the 21st Century West. Throughout Scripture, we see a familial/communal aspect to ones faith. So much of our focus in how we talk about our faith in Christ is what we do, rather than the focus on what Christ does for us.
Experience: Be it the baptism of an infant or an adult, we know that being baptized does not ensure that person will remain in Christ. This is often a common objection to infant baptism, “that baby can’t make a decision, there’s no guarantee they will follow Him.” This is true, just as there is not guarantee that anyone will apostatize the faith.
Back to a consideration of the individualization of culture and faith. One thing that we forget about Sacraments is that is is more than just recognizing our part, but they are also a declaration of what God has done, and His work in our lives to save us. What’s more powerful than a declaration of the Gospel, and the work of Christ when someone is baptized? In baptism we recognize God’s saving work, and through that work we state that our children are now apart of God’s people, to be raised in His ways. While similar to dedication as some would say, I would argue the impact is much more profound.
Final Thoughts: As I said, this post is not exhaustive. But it is a sort of primer as to why I no longer consider myself a credo-baptist. But what I’ve presented here represents some of the core reasoning that I now am a proponent of infant-baptism. This transformation has been just one aspect of my theological journey to one that has been more connected to the historical Church that is faithful to Scripture. I still identify myself as an Evangelical (in the religious, not political meaning), but have also been increasingly identifying some of the pitfalls and shortcomings that Evangelicalism has accrued through being suspicious of the past.
For other in-depth discussion on infant-baptism you can check out these resources:
https://reformedperspectives.org/files/reformedperspectives/theology/TH.Johnson.Baptism.html
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/a-brief-defense-of-infant-baptism/
https://leanpub.com/infant-baptism/read
.png)
