Does the Bible Teach Infant Baptism?

TL;DR

Infant baptism lacks explicit biblical support and changes the meaning of baptism
Household baptisms in Scripture do not necessarily include infants
Circumcision and baptism have important differences in meaning and purpose
Faith and repentance should precede baptism

No Explicit Biblical Support

The practice of infant baptism lacks explicit biblical support. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a clear example of an infant being baptized or a command to baptize infants. Important passages on baptism emphasize personal faith and repentance as prerequisites (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:12). The lack of clarity has led to disagreement among Christians on this issue throughout history. Without explicit biblical teaching, we should be cautious about making firm doctrinal statements that all infants must be baptized. This allows room for differences in interpretation and practice. However, for those who prefer a principle-based method, the onus may be on opponents of infant baptism to prove that the practice is strictly forbidden in Scripture. Either way, the lack of unambiguous support should give us pause before being too dogmatic.

Household Baptisms

Several household baptism passages do not necessarily include infants (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16). Firstly, the Greek word translated “household” (oikos) had a broader meaning in that cultural context, often referring to servants and employees rather than just family. Secondly, the other members of the household are described as hearing the gospel message, believing in Christ or rejoicing. This implies they were old enough to place conscious faith in Jesus. Nowhere do these passages mention infants being present or baptized. Although possible, there is no definitive evidence. This shows household baptism texts cannot be used conclusively in support of infant baptism.

Circumcision and Baptism Differences

Linking circumcision and baptism has problems (Col. 2:11-12). Firstly, circumcision in Scripture signifies physical descent from Abraham, while baptism represents spiritual rebirth and incorporation into Christ. Secondly, circumcision was mandated for every male descendant eight days after birth with no profession of faith. Whereas baptism is connected to faith and repentance in the New Testament. Thirdly, baptism is applied to both genders equally. Therefore, while connections exist due to covenant theology, there are also notable differences in meaning and recipients. Circumcision texts provide inconclusive support for mandatory infant baptism.

Faith and Repentance Precedes Baptism

Scripture presents faith and repentance as prerequisites for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Baptism illustrates Christ’s death and resurrection, along with the believer’s transformation and commitment to God. Infant baptism changes this by essentially treating baptism itself as the means through which God’s promises are communicated, rather than a response and pledge given after conversion. Supporters claim God regenerates the infant later to fulfill the baptismal promises. However, less biblical grounding exists for baptism preceding faith rather than following conversion. This suggests believer’s baptism better aligns with the New Testament pattern.

Conclusion

While reasonable biblical cases can be made on both sides, several factors suggest significant caution is needed before making infant baptism mandatory. There are enough unanswered questions and theological differences to make this a disputable matter. A gracious discussion and tolerance of alternative views seems appropriate.

“Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ” edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright – A comprehensive biblical examination of believer’s baptism and its theological significance.
“The Fatal Flaw” by Jeff Johnson