The question of whether infants should be baptized has divided Christians for centuries. Those who practice infant (paedobaptists) include Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Methodists. Those who reserve baptism for professing believers (credobaptists) include Baptists, Pentecostals, and many nondenominational churches. Both sides are made up of serious, Bible-reading Christians. Here is what each position teaches and why.
The Case for Believer's Baptism
📖 Acts 2:38 On the day of Pentecost, Peter issued a clear call:
Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The pattern here — and throughout Acts — is consistent: hear the gospel, believe, then be baptized. Credobaptists argue this sequence is normative, not incidental. Baptism is a public declaration of a decision that has already been made. An infant cannot repent, believe, or confess faith, so baptizing an infant misapplies the ordinance.
Additional arguments for believer's baptism:
Every clear example in Acts involves a profession of faith. The Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:36-38), Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:47-48), Lydia (Acts 16:14-15), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30-34) — in every case, faith precedes baptism.
Jesus' own baptism was as an adult. He was baptized by John in the Jordan as a conscious, deliberate act (Matthew 3:13-17).
The Great Commission links discipleship and baptism. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them" (Matthew 28:19). The order matters: disciples first, then baptism.
The Case for Infant Baptism
📖 Acts 16:31-33 Paedobaptists often point to the household baptisms in Acts:
And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
The argument: "household" (Greek: oikos) in the first-century world would typically include children, even infants. If the entire household was baptized upon the head of household's faith, that mirrors the Covenant pattern of the Old Testament, where children were included in God's covenant community through circumcision.
Additional arguments for infant baptism:
Baptism replaces circumcision. In Colossians 2:11-12, Paul connects circumcision and baptism. Under the old Covenant, infant boys were circumcised on the eighth day as a sign of inclusion in God's people — not because they had professed faith, but because they belonged to a covenant family. Paedobaptists argue baptism functions the same way.
Jesus welcomed children. In Mark 10:13-16, Jesus rebuked the disciples for keeping children away and said the kingdom of God belongs to "such as these." Paedobaptists see this as affirming children's place in the covenant community.
Early church practice. By the second and third centuries, infant baptism was widely practiced. Paedobaptists argue this reflects apostolic tradition, not later innovation.
What Both Sides Agree On
Despite their differences, both positions affirm:
- Baptism is commanded by Christ and important for every believer.
- Salvation is by grace through faith, not by the act of baptism itself.
- Baptism is connected to the work of the Holy Spirit.
- The church is the covenant community of God's people.
Where the Disagreement Really Lives
The deepest divide is not about water — it is about the nature of the Covenant community. Paedobaptists see the church as including believers and their children, just as Israel included the whole household. The sign of the covenant is applied to children in anticipation of their faith. Credobaptists see the new covenant community as consisting only of those who have personally professed faith. The sign is applied after the reality it represents.
Both positions have strong biblical arguments, and both face questions their frameworks do not easily answer. Paedobaptists must explain why the New Testament never explicitly commands infant baptism. Credobaptists must explain the household baptisms and the strong continuity between Old and New Testament covenant signs.
The Bottom Line
This is a genuine area of Christian disagreement where humility matters. The question is not whether baptism is important — it is. The question is who receives it and when. Wherever you land, hold your conviction with confidence and charity, recognizing that the Christians on the other side are not ignoring Scripture — they are reading it through a different lens on the relationship between the covenants.