Revisiting Baptism and Young Children

~ Bob Hayton

I’ve considered this question before. As Baptists, when should we baptize our children? A few blog posts recently give reasons why we should or should not delay baptism until our children are more mature (apx. ages 10-12).

First, Trevin Wax gave 4 points on his position relating to this question (which is that we should delay baptizing children until they are around 10 years old or so).

John Starke at The Gospel Coalition Blog then gave 4 reasons why we should baptize small children.

On the heels of these posts, Mike Gilbart-Smith at 9 Marks Blog posted his own “9 reasons why we should not baptize young children“.

For my part, I have a hard time getting around the household baptism passages in Acts. Presbyterians point to household baptisms as evidence of the batpism of small children and infants. Baptists demur and say these passages are silent about the age of children, and often give evidence that all the members of the households evidenced faith. Now, however, when it comes to young children old enough to express faith, Baptists are free to let these children wait in some cases years before affirming their faith through baptism? The very same passages in Acts where all members of a household (presumably including children) believe and then are immediately baptized, now have nothing to say about children below the age of 12. It’s one thing to assume the passages don’t refer to infants, now we are supposed to believe they don’t refer to children under 12? Just who should we include as being in the households of the Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer and others?

As Starke points out, “the Bible doesn’t seem to give us any examples of an un-baptized Christian”. Furthermore, Justin Taylor in linking to Starke’s post above, added this insight:

There is an irony in the discussion””namely, that Jesus tells us to have faith like a child, and we often tell children that they first have to have demonstrate faith like an adult.

All things considered, at the risk of being considered a closet Presbyterian, I tend to think that the symbolism of Baptism is as much about the objective work of Christ for us (washing our hearts clean), as it is about the subjective experience of our testifying to our belief in the gospel (being buried with Christ in baptism). What happens in Baptism is an identifying with Christ and a celebration of what He has done, ultimately, not what we have done. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for young children who have demonstrated faith in Christ. And since baptism doesn’t save, I am not persuaded by arguments for delaying baptism. I may not agree fully with Vern Poythress’ thoughts about how even 2 and 3 year old children can have saving faith, but I also think he has a point.

I’m interested in what my readers think about this. I understand that some of us find ourselves in churches with an official policy of delaying baptism. I’m not advocating that you disregard your church’s teaching on this subject. Please don’t misunderstand me. But I think a more biblical position is to accept the little children that come to Jesus, and allow them after a period of evaluation, to be baptized.

28 thoughts on “Revisiting Baptism and Young Children”

    1. Agreed 🙂 After they have proclaimed their faith in Christ, they should be baptized.

  2. Hey bob,

    As a pastor this has been a perplexing issue especially as a traditional Reformed Congregationalist. One of the best debates I have heard on the subject of Paedo vs. Credo baptism is the one between Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. R.C. Sproul. Though there isn’t much in the way of determining the “age of accountability,” it was a good insight on their prospective positions with some really good exegesis of proof texts for each position. I personally struggle with the baptist position (raised a baptist) and the traditional reformed position. Though I am very familiar with both, my tradition leads me one way, and convenience leads me another.

    I don’t believe that you can set an age in stone and require all in your congregation to adhere to it, if that’s the case, show me the scriptures that prove that position. Now that being said, give me the age and number of people over and under the age of 12 in the house of the jailer and in the house of Lydia. Baptists have as much proof text to say that there wasn’t as those in the reformed camp say that their was.

    So in the end, how is one to be inclusive to the youth of the church who have made a confession regardless of their age or a confession made by at least one confessing parent (in the issue of Paedobaptism) and yet remain true to the inerrant, infallible and inspired word of God. That is a perplexing question. In my position, I baptize both infants and those who make a confession. though this may seem unorthodox to some, it’s completely consistent with the vast majority of protestant movements. Either way, the youth of the church will attend conformation classes to ensure what they have confessed in true, and for those who have been baptized as infants will have the opportunity to hear and receive Gods word.

    Just my 2 cents. . . .

    Blessings brother

    1. In my position, I baptize both infants and those who make a confession. though this may seem unorthodox to some, it’s completely consistent with the vast majority of protestant movements. Either way, the youth of the church will attend conformation classes to ensure what they have confessed in true, and for those who have been baptized as infants will have the opportunity to hear and receive Gods word.

      Interesting, Toby. That’s kind of the Presbyterian position almost. I hear that the Evangelical Free church has the policy to leave it up to member churches, too….

      If you search my Baptism category, you’ll see my thoughts back and forth on the topic too. John Piper and Bethlehem Baptist, where I used to attend, wrestled with the issue. At this point I remain Baptist, but need to study it out more. I’ll have to track down that debate sometime.

  3. Our personal family philosophy is to neither encourage nor discourage our children to be baptized. They hear and see enough of it at church, we figure when they are ready they will begin asking about it. Our three oldest have been saved, but only the youngest has expressed an interest in being baptized. She got baptized just last month. Now, as the older two get into their teens we may encourage them more towards being baptized, but right now they are under that age of 12 everyone seems focused on.
    I don’t think there is a biblical basis for an age requirement.

    1. I like that approach, C. James. But I wonder if Acts 2 “the promise is for you and your children”, wouldn’t encourage us to take more of an active role. The households that were baptized seem to major on the householder’s faith not the faith of the others, yet everyone got baptized. So at the least we should be encouraging our children to obey the Lord through baptism.

      All in all, the evangelical church today is so confused about baptism being just an optional extra that it’s no wonder there are many different ideas on this. It behooves us as parents to study things out and prayerfully consider the matter with our children. Sounds like you have.

      Blessings in Christ,

      Bob

      1. How do we know when a child is professed faith and just isn’t copying what they hear?
        Bob, have you baptized your older girls?

      2. No I haven’t baptized them. One or two of them are ready, in my opinion, but my church leadership advises to wait. So I’m submitting to them in this. I agree it isn’t easy to be able to know that, so teaching the child and seeing interest in their heart about baptism, seeing fruits of the Spirit in their life along with their profession of faith — this is all part of the evaluation period, which in my mind doesn’t have to be years. Probably shouldn’t be, but often is.

  4. As a former Baptist, your conclusion is what my experience had always been. Children, however young, were examined as to their ability to demonstrate they understood the gospel and what it has done for them, then they were baptized. I think it’s the best way to meet in the middle on the age of candidates for baptism. Otherwise, it seems to me those who would withhold it until professing children are older are just wishing the New Testament had been more explicit about how young is too young for baptism. That being said, with all due respect, that seems to indicate something of the weakness of the Baptist hermeneutic on New Testament baptism.

    Since so much other doctrine involves a certain amount of inference, Baptists should be encouraged to have faith in God to grant grace for spiritual growth to these young, baptized professors of faith as their ministers are diligent to teach and disciple them. It’s a valid concern that folks who were baptized as children may grow to be unfaithful, but it’s not like the Baptists have batted a thousand in preventing older professing believers whom they’ve baptized from falling away from the faith as well. That logic works both ways. That being said, I therefore don’t see the logic of withholding baptism until a professing child has reached a particular age.

    Otherwise, all I’d be good for beyond this would be to help nudge you off that fence over into the paedobaptist yard. Come on over, Bob, we’re having a great time over here! 😉 Or, as the Presbyterians who teased me into the tradition used to say: 1)Resistance is futile–you will be assimilated; and 2)one Presbyterian teased me that a Baptist can get the puppy born, but it takes a Presbyterian to open the puppies eyes (I love that one!)

    Come on over to the Dark Side 🙂

  5. Ok so I know this has absolutely nothing to do with this post, but I tried messaging you and I never got a response. Maybe my message didn’t get sent? I dont know… anyways… I have just recently (within the past year) started attending a fundamental independet baptist church, and have had a lot of the problems with it that you discuss on this webpage. I’m really glad I came to it! So at least I know I’m not alone.

    I have a question about Calvinism. I’m a little confused with the idea of predestination. I mean, I understand that it’s in the Bible. There are many Bible verses that support it, I understand that. I believe in predestination. But what about 2 Peter 3:9? How do you explain that? Just wondering.

    I read a commentary by John MacArthur once that said you can’t explain it. Basically just stop trying to explain God, cause there are many paradoxes in the Bible that our human brain can’t comprehend.

    Just wondering what you thought about it.

    2. Sorry, Christina. I don’t know if it got through or not. Lately I’ve been swamped and haven’t been keeping up on correspondence as well as I should.

      On the 2 Pet. 3:9 passage, I believe that there are explanations. Ultimately we can leave it with God and trust him. But, one explanation is that the context of 2 Pet. 3:9 concerns God’s elect, and the “any” refers to any of the elect. Another explanation would be that God has more than one “will”. He wills as in his revealed will (what he expects of us). So God wills that we love God with all our heart and soul and mind — all the time (without fail). None of us do this. We all fail. So God’s will in this sense is continually thwarted. God desires blessing not punishment for people universally, but given people’s sin he has so declared/willed that Hell exist to punish sin. John Piper’s article “Are there two wills in God?“, helps on this point.

      Thanks,

      Bob Hayton

      PS You can email me directly at bobhayton[at]gmail[dot]com.

      1. Wow, that really helped! That makes a lot of sense. Thanks! And i’ll definitely check out that article.

        Oh and no problem 🙂 Thanks for giving me your email, if i have any questions i’ll let u know.

  6. Christina – 2 Peter 3:9 means exactly what it says, I love my reformed brothers here, but there is not a hint in the context that it is speaking of “one of the elect” or any thing about different “wills” of God. (sorry Bob) Part of my main problem with calvinism is that it takes simple verses of scripture and over-examines them, no one here wants to mislead you, I well know that, but for verses like this, according to calvinist folks, you must understand it within a bigger context, you just can’t believe it for what it says, much like the reformed folks do with many other verses, take Titus 2:11, for instance, clearly here scripture teaches that “God’s Grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men” again what does this mean? I submit it means exactly what it says. Just one more, if I may, 1 John 2:2 “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” What does this mean? You guessed it, it means exactly what it says. I could literally go on for hours like this, but I got a funny feeling I have already over-stayed my welcome.

  7. Contra Greg, read 2 Pet. 3 and notice the “you”s, “we”s, and “beloved”s. That’s what I mean by context. Who was the promise made to and what was the promise (in vs. 9)? Does the promise apply to all people or to “the beloved”? How is God’s patience “toward you” displayed in a non-discriminate, universal wish for all to repent and none to perish? Could it not be that God’s patience “toward you” (the “we” and “beloved” of the passage), is seen in his not being willing that any of you should perish, but that all of you should come to repentance? There is a contextual argument to be made for sure.

    1. Bob – I know you would never willingly lead someone astray, and I think I have said this before, I’m just not smart enough to be a calvinist.

      If you are reading this, salvation is for you. “For whosever shall call upon the Lord shall be saved.” Rommans 10:13 It is for this reason why Jesus came to this planet “To seek and to save that which was lost” Luke 19:10

      1. I agree, Greg. Salvation is for all who will believe. Jesus did come to seek and save the lost (not for those who think they’re righteous, by the way).

        But what’s being said in 2 Peter is different. God elects people, that is the teaching of Scripture. God also does the saving of us, we don’t. God saves us. So God is speaking about His saving of us, He’s not willing that any of us should perish but that all of us elect ones should be saved.

        That doesn’t negate the fact that God wills that all repent and believe. It doesn’t counter Rom. 10. It is just the reading of 2 Peter and what is being said there. At least that’s my understanding of it. Calvinistic teaching describes what goes on behind the scenes when it comes to salvation. I believe it because Scripture teaches it. I may not always be able to articulate how it jives with preaching the gospel to all men indiscriminately, and with how all have the responsibility and privilege to respond to the Gospel message. But when Scripture deals with why certain people respond to the Gospel, it gives the credit to God’s working behind the scenes. Scripture goes out of its way to explain that God elected people before the foundation of the world to be His people. I don’t think I have the right to just explain away the meaning of elect or choose, to be something else. God really doesn’t choose, he just waits and sees who will choose Him, and then He chooses them. That concept is playing word games with Scripture. Not the position that sits meekly before God’s word and tries to acknowledge all parts of it.

        I know neither of us tries to lead people astray. And neither of us tries to be sitting in judgement over God’s word. I appreciate you Greg. But I just don’t see eye-to-eye with you here.

  8. Hi all, Elise posted this and said if we had any comments they are welcomed. I don’t normally follow blogs. But I find the topic of paedobaptism very interesting especially since I just baptized all 4 of my children (ages 12-19 months) last month. We are in a Reformed church and I find it hard to be able to adhere to the Reformed fatih and doctrine and deny infant baptism. I tend to find that people who strongly disagree with baptism of infants have a wrong understanding of not only baptism as a sacrament but also of the grace of God. When making the decision to baptized my children I went to many sources but made sure that all these sources were rooted in the Bible. Beside my Pastor I found the Heidelberg Catechism Q. 69-74, the Belgic Confession article 34 and the Canon of Dort 1st Head, article 17 all to be very sound. Recently I’ve also found the Westminster Larger Catechism Q 165 and 166 also speaks of baptizing children.
    A more curious question for me is how does one consider themselves to be Reformed and reconcile a doctrine (either the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Catechism) with a credobaptism only position?

    1. Have you seen the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith? There are some good Reformed defenses of credobaptism. While I don’t argue for baptism the way I used to before being reformed, I still find the language about baptism in the New Testament to be such that I can’t imagine it being used of non-regenerate people. My understanding of regeneration is that this is connected closely with faith, it happens logically first, but naturally reveals itself in faith.

      I think circumcision and baptism both were practiced side by side in the Jewish churches in Israel for a time. That seems important, if we’re just to assume that baptism picks up where circumcision leaves off.

      I know John is trying to convert me and all, but I do think the new covenant is different enough that the sign of the new covenant is applied differently in this covenant than the previous one. Don’t have time for a detailed defense of Baptism right now, but many Reformed people were Baptists. The 1833 New Hampshire Baptist Confession is another example for you.

  9. So then, if I understand this correctly, “Reformed” Baptists do not adhere to The Three Forms of Unity (Heidelberg) or the Westminster Catechism, but adhere to other kind of confessions and creeds? That helps my understanding much better.

    I just looked up the Second London Baptist Confession. So is it to be my understanding, according to this confession, that Baptists do not believe that baptism in general is a seal of grace, but a sign of fellowship. The Heidelberg clearly states that it is a seal TO us. From who? From God. But this Confession would have us to believe that baptism is a sign TO others. That we have fellowship with God in part because of our “giving up into God”. Seems like a Arminian view to me.
    Paragraph 2 is rather odd to me. I find the word “actually” a little hard to swallow. Who determines if a person has “actually” repented? What if someone who was determined to have “actually” repented falls away from God? Does that mean that person is still saved? What if that person comes back and is found to have “actually” repented again, do they get rebaptized? How many times does a person get baptized, as many times as they repent? I do not find any of the Scriptures presented in this Confession to be convincing of credo-baptism. For me, a Scripture that speaks for paedo-baptism is Matt. 19:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; of such is the kingdom of heaven.” If we are only to baptize adults according to whether they believe or not, why bother teaching our children the Gospel. With that logic we should wait until they are old enough to repent and be baptized.

    I enjoy discussion such as these because they encourage me to read my Bible more. Thanks.

    1. If you want to see all sides of this discussion (or a good many of them) fleshed out, you should see the numerous comments at these two posts. I participated. The original post was a defense of Baptism from a covenantal/Reformed perspective. The second post was the author of the first post changing his mind through the discussion and adopting a Presbyterian paedobaptism position. For any interested in how the debate works in a non-dispensational sense with a careful handling of Scripture (I think), and an appreciation and respect for opposing views, this is a great discussion to read:

      Credo-Baptism and Covenant Theology

      Credo Baptism: A Retraction

  10. Bob, Melinda is a friend of mine.
    Enjoying the overall discussion with all the comments.

  11. Pingback: Baptism and young children. « Forgivensinner's Blog

Comments are closed.