Many people are aware that certain tribes within Christianity extend the sacrament of baptism to infants. It is often called “paedobaptism” and is practiced by Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and others. However, several others only practice baptism with people old enough to profess faith in Jesus Christ. This is often called “credobaptism” and is practiced by Baptists, Assemblies of God, Pentecostals, Church of Christ, and others.
Why is Good News Church a credobaptist church?
THE SHORT ANSWER
Here’s a brief 3-sentence way to explain it:
Why is Good News Church a credobaptist church?
THE SHORT ANSWER
Here’s a brief 3-sentence way to explain it:
- The Bible commands us to baptize converts to Christianity in Matthew 28:18-20.
- The Bible illustrates for us the baptism of converts in many narratives, and Acts 2:38, 2:41, 8:12, 8:26-38, 9:15-18, 10:44-48, 16:14-15, 16:29-34, 18:8 and 19:1-7 are just ten examples of places where the Bible shows this in story-form.
- The Bible does not command, show, or otherwise mention the baptizing of babies - not even one time.
It’s that simple. Good News doesn’t practice the baptism of infants (who obviously have not placed their faith in Jesus Christ like all the baptizees mentioned in Scripture) for the same reason it doesn’t practice the gifting of donuts to our next-door neighbors on June 5th of each year. Neither the act of infant baptism nor the act of June Donut-Gifting is forbidden in the Bible, and both might produce some good results depending on the situation. However, neither of those practices are mentioned in the Bible.
THEN WHY DO SOME CHRISTIANS DO IT?
Well, I happen to have grown up Presbyterian. So, I think I can speak to this issue from personal experience; the concept is not foreign to me.
I grew up as a paedobaptist because that is what was taught in my church. I married Heidi at age 21, and continued to be a paedobaptist until I was around 25. That means, that if we had children during the first four years of our marriage, they would have been baptized as infants. I can even remember telling Heidi, back then, what song I wanted played at the baptism of our first baby.
WHAT WERE WE THINKING?
Well, if you ask a Presbyterian, many of them will be quick to admit that infant baptism (or the baptism of any non-believing person) is not mentioned in the Bible. A lot of them know that.
Some of them will argue that the baptism of babies is implied in passages like Acts 16:14-15 and 34 where it mentions the baptism of entire households. However, even then, they know that there aren’t any babies mentioned in those passages. Nonetheless, they are often excited to mention that there could have beenbabies in those stories that weren’t explicitly mentioned.
However, the main reason we (as Presbtyerians) believed in paedobaptism was connected to the idea of the continuity of the two Testaments. If the Old Testament sign of God’s covenant people was circumcision (which was administered to babies), then the New Testament sign of God’s covenant people, baptism, ought to be administered to the same people – the children of believers.
This made sense to me for quite a while.
WHAT MADE YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND?
I think I changed my mind on whatever day it was that I figured out that paedobaptist doctrine wasn’t clearly taught anywhere in Scripture. That stuck out as odd to me because it seemed to me that the Presbyterians I grew up with did a really good job of trying to only believe what the Bible taught. If something wasn’t in there, they didn’t pretend that it was. And if something was in there, they believed it, even if it was offensive or difficult to believe. (I still appreciate that about those Presbyterians. What a wonderful heritage they provided for me.)
Eventually, I noticed that even Presbyterians acknowledge that there are some differences in the two covenants. For instance, I never met a Presbyterian who refused to baptize female babies… even though Old Testament circumcision was exclusively male. Well, what happened to the continuity between the Testaments? It seems that they realized there were some differences. So, why couldn’t it be that the New Covenant requires the baptism of believers-only, just as the Bible says in all of the commands and narratives that cover this topic?
At some point I thought to myself, if I simply read the Bible, without anyone teaching me anything about infant baptism, I’d have never come up with it on my own. I can’t imagine reading this particular book and then coming to the conclusion: “God wants me to baptize my children before they can even speak!” If God wanted me to baptize my children prior to them professing their faith, it seemed to me He would have given us a book that is written differently than the way that the Bible is written. (Similarly, I think that if God wanted me to believe that I could earn my salvation by good works and human effort, He’d have written the Bible differently than it is currently written.)
SO NOW WHAT?
I have no hard feelings about my Presbyterian upbringing. I am grateful God placed me in such a wonderful church for such a long period of time. And I have no hostility toward Christians who disagree with me about this and baptize their babies. I don’t think it does harm to put water on a baby’s head in the name of Jesus, provided you don’t believe the water is saving the child (which Presbyterians do NOT believe.)
I have even counseled credobaptist grandparents to attend and be supportive of their paedobaptist children if they choose to get their own babies baptized. Provided the parents aren’t actually placing their faith in the baptism as the way of salvation for their children, this isn’t worth fighting about. At least that’s how I see it.
CONCLUSION
Having said all of that, I now circle back to where we began. At Good News Church, we don’t practice infant baptism because there are no instructions (or examples) about it in the Bible.
THEN WHY DO SOME CHRISTIANS DO IT?
Well, I happen to have grown up Presbyterian. So, I think I can speak to this issue from personal experience; the concept is not foreign to me.
I grew up as a paedobaptist because that is what was taught in my church. I married Heidi at age 21, and continued to be a paedobaptist until I was around 25. That means, that if we had children during the first four years of our marriage, they would have been baptized as infants. I can even remember telling Heidi, back then, what song I wanted played at the baptism of our first baby.
WHAT WERE WE THINKING?
Well, if you ask a Presbyterian, many of them will be quick to admit that infant baptism (or the baptism of any non-believing person) is not mentioned in the Bible. A lot of them know that.
Some of them will argue that the baptism of babies is implied in passages like Acts 16:14-15 and 34 where it mentions the baptism of entire households. However, even then, they know that there aren’t any babies mentioned in those passages. Nonetheless, they are often excited to mention that there could have beenbabies in those stories that weren’t explicitly mentioned.
However, the main reason we (as Presbtyerians) believed in paedobaptism was connected to the idea of the continuity of the two Testaments. If the Old Testament sign of God’s covenant people was circumcision (which was administered to babies), then the New Testament sign of God’s covenant people, baptism, ought to be administered to the same people – the children of believers.
This made sense to me for quite a while.
WHAT MADE YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND?
I think I changed my mind on whatever day it was that I figured out that paedobaptist doctrine wasn’t clearly taught anywhere in Scripture. That stuck out as odd to me because it seemed to me that the Presbyterians I grew up with did a really good job of trying to only believe what the Bible taught. If something wasn’t in there, they didn’t pretend that it was. And if something was in there, they believed it, even if it was offensive or difficult to believe. (I still appreciate that about those Presbyterians. What a wonderful heritage they provided for me.)
Eventually, I noticed that even Presbyterians acknowledge that there are some differences in the two covenants. For instance, I never met a Presbyterian who refused to baptize female babies… even though Old Testament circumcision was exclusively male. Well, what happened to the continuity between the Testaments? It seems that they realized there were some differences. So, why couldn’t it be that the New Covenant requires the baptism of believers-only, just as the Bible says in all of the commands and narratives that cover this topic?
At some point I thought to myself, if I simply read the Bible, without anyone teaching me anything about infant baptism, I’d have never come up with it on my own. I can’t imagine reading this particular book and then coming to the conclusion: “God wants me to baptize my children before they can even speak!” If God wanted me to baptize my children prior to them professing their faith, it seemed to me He would have given us a book that is written differently than the way that the Bible is written. (Similarly, I think that if God wanted me to believe that I could earn my salvation by good works and human effort, He’d have written the Bible differently than it is currently written.)
SO NOW WHAT?
I have no hard feelings about my Presbyterian upbringing. I am grateful God placed me in such a wonderful church for such a long period of time. And I have no hostility toward Christians who disagree with me about this and baptize their babies. I don’t think it does harm to put water on a baby’s head in the name of Jesus, provided you don’t believe the water is saving the child (which Presbyterians do NOT believe.)
I have even counseled credobaptist grandparents to attend and be supportive of their paedobaptist children if they choose to get their own babies baptized. Provided the parents aren’t actually placing their faith in the baptism as the way of salvation for their children, this isn’t worth fighting about. At least that’s how I see it.
CONCLUSION
Having said all of that, I now circle back to where we began. At Good News Church, we don’t practice infant baptism because there are no instructions (or examples) about it in the Bible.
