Should we baptize young children? It is a good question! But we first have to admit that the Bible does not directly address this question. We Baptists believe Scripture is clear that only professing believers should be baptized, but the age at which they are baptized is not so clear. This is a complex issue, and there are plenty of competing pastoral concerns and theological concepts to consider. Wisdom is required to think the issue through, along with patience and grace to love one another through differences of opinions. Ultimately, what you believe about this issue is not a matter of faithfulness, but of conscience and wisdom.
I will state my position up-front: I am in favour of baptizing professing children. Because of the Bible’s silence on this matter, we must all admit that creating a rule about baptismal age would be creating an extra-biblical rule. Such a rule would not necessarily be unwise, but we can admit it would not be based on biblical teaching.
Unbiblical, Unloving Delays
The regular biblical pattern for baptism is to baptize on a credible profession of faith, without a probationary period. This goes for all believers, not just adults. There are no unbaptized believers known of in Scripture, because the early church was following Jesus’ command to baptize everyone who professes faith in Christ. There was no probationary period, no “testing the fruit” period, no already-sanctified maturity required for baptism. The modern church has often artificially separated salvation from baptism, perhaps with good motives, but, I believe, with unfortunate results. Baptism was always meant to be the first act of obedience for new believers. The initiatory rite. The “confessing with one’s mouth” proof of saving faith. To put it another way: baptism is meant to be an initiation into discipleship, not a culmination of discipleship. Therefore, if we withhold baptism from new believers and/or professing children, we create a category of Christians that does not exist in Scripture. Someone could theoretically go for years confessing faith in Christ, and be prohibited from obeying Christ. This should not be so—for children or adults. Maturity is not required for baptism; faith is.
If we enact probationary periods before baptism not only goes against the biblical pattern, but also can lead to significant (unintended) negative consequences. It implies that we need more than faith to be saved, which is contrary to the gospel we want our children to profess. John Starke comments, “We have reacted against an “easy-believism” Christianity with a “prove yourself” mentality… Telling an 8-year-old who wants to be baptized that she needs to wait until she is 10 (or whatever age you assign) implies that she is either not a Christian or not a good enough one. In other words, a probationary period implies that there is something more than faith we need to do in order to be a Christian: I need to be at least 10 years old; I need to be able to vote in a church meeting; I need to act in a certain way or articulate things properly so that my parents or pastor will finally treat me as a Christian. If we have no reason to doubt their belief in the gospel, we have no biblical precedence to keep them from being baptized.” The desire to wait until one’s faith is “testable” or “tested” is understandable, yet unbiblical.
On a very basic level, I agree with Vern Poythress, who argues that delaying baptism goes against the love and grace of Christ. How so? He says: “Delay in baptism is inconsistent with Christian love, which does not wait for mature proof before embracing brothers in love. It is inconsistent with Christ, who receives us when we come to him, not when we have proved ourselves mature.”
The Purpose of Baptism
This leads to a key question regarding baptism: What does baptism do? Is baptism an individual’s public profession of faith, or a church’s profession of someone’s salvation? In some senses, it may be considered both. But I believe it is more properly understood as the former. I certainly believe that, as much as possible, a baptism should take place in the context of a church community. This helps demonstrate the communal aspect of the faith someone is baptized into. It edifies the local church body. And it essentially acts like a “welcome to the family” celebration. In this informal sense, a church can have an affirming role while baptizing someone. A “we see your profession, and we celebrate the Lord’s salvation with you!”
However, that is not the key purpose of baptism. Baptism is an individual’s response to being saved. It is their public profession of faith in Christ. It is not the church’s confirmation of their faith in Christ. (In fact, the Bible contains clear situations, such as with the Ethiopian eunuch, which do not fit the ideal situation of having a church body—or even other witnesses!—present) We, as a church, should confirm that there is a credible profession of faith, but we cannot actually (ever) confirm actual faith within someone else’s heart. Certainly, we should hesitate to baptize those who give evidence to the contrary. But believers are never charged in Scripture to “police” baptism to ensure that someone is certainly or totally saved first. As Julian Freeman says: “Think about it; how much credible evidence could the people in Acts have given who heard one gospel message and were saved? Yet, they were baptized. Then discipled.”If someone’s profession of faith later proved to be ingenuine, then church discipline could come into play. In essence, withholding baptism is a proactive response to potentially false conversions, instead of the more biblical view of reactionary responses to false conversions in church discipline. Therefore, being afraid of being wrong about whether or not someone is converted before baptism is an unbiblical, inappropriate fear.
Baptism is also meant to be the first step of obedience for believers. If our children are believers, we run the risk of forcing them to walk in disobedience to Christ if we do not allow them to be baptized. This is a very serious matter. Consider: If disobedience to Christ is sin, then we would be causing our children to sin. And that’s where millstones may come into play: “…whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6) Additionally, if we refuse to baptize a genuine believer, we too are then also disobeying Christ’s direct command in the Great Commission.
Beyond this, we run the risk of suppressing or “suffocating” baby Christians. We cut them off from a very important means of grace that God intends for all believers. (“Means of grace” is a theological term for ways that God gives grace to us in order to grow our faith, such as Scripture, prayer, the Lord’s Supper, and baptism) Freeman explains: “The enjoyment of means of grace in the life of a Christian are like breathing and the grace itself is the believer’s oxygen. Without means of grace there will be no intake of oxygen… Is baptism a means of grace or not? Because if it is, we’re essentially telling the youngest of baby Christians (new converts of whatever age) to continue living without breathing, without taking in grace through God’s appointed means.” Some will say we must be cautious to not act prematurely. Certainly. But I also believe many grossly minimize the danger of discouraging children or new believers.
Children are Disciples Too
Ultimately, I believe the question boils down to this: Can children fully be disciples of Jesus Christ? I do not know of anyone who would deny this as fact. However, our treatment of them would call this into question. If they can be disciples, should all disciples be baptized disciples or not? I believe so. Baptism actually plays a key role in discipleship as a whole. All followers of Christ should be baptized, and then taught to obey (Matthew 28:18-20). Delaying baptism would be hypocritical at best. If you believe that someone is in the family of God, but by your actions, deny them the rights of family, you are practically saying they are not believers.
Withholding baptism seems to communicate the point that full Christianity is only for adults. It says that the kingdom of God is a kingdom where children are not welcome. God forbid! Funny: Jesus says the kingdom belongs to children and such as them. (Matthew 19:14) And entrance into the kingdom of God requires child-like faith (Matthew 18:1-6), not adult-like faith. Why should the waters of baptism have different requirements? Justin Taylor comments, “At the end of the day, we have to remember that Jesus told his adult disciples to repent, becoming like children. Then many of us turn around and tell our children that their faith is not worthy of baptism until they have repented like an adult.” We should perhaps better echo Charles Spurgeon here: “Let us be willing to receive [children] to Baptism and to the Lord’s Table, and when they are received, instead of thinking of them as though they were less valuable than other members, let us count them to be the very pride of the flock!”
There is a key difference between saving faith and mature, intellectual apprehension. As Poythress pointedly explains: “We must recognize that Christian faith is primarily personal trust in Christ rather than intellectual mastery or technical skill in verbal articulation of the truth… As adults, we believe many facts and many truths about God and about his promises to us in the Bible. But faith is genuine long before intellectual apprehension reaches its completion… It is easy to put improper emphasis on intellectual and verbal apprehension of the truth. When we look at children, we naturally hope that their intellectual apprehension of God’s truth will grow, and that their faith will come to maturity. We encourage such growth. Our hopes and our encouragement are quite proper. But if we equate intellectual maturity with the essence of faith, we change salvation from a free gift into the property of those with proper intellectual credentials. And then we contradict the gospel, which tells of God’s mercy to the undeserving, mercy that utterly ignores all supposed human credentials and vaunted abilities.”
Responding to Objections
Some will say that a child may not actually have their own faith, but only have their “family’s or parent’s faith,” and thus, we should wait to baptize until they make their faith their own. It’s not that children lack maturity, but that they lack full individuality or autonomy in faith. After all, children tend to say what their parents want them to say and believe what their parents tell them to believe. Therefore, professions of faith seem suspect. However, thinking that someone must have a personal faith that is fully independent of family or other believers is misguided, unbiblical, and quite individualistic. Even adult faith is (or should be) rooted in community. None of us stand alone. Of course it is a good thing when children “make the faith their own.” But to make this a line for baptism seems inappropriate. Poythress adds that, in biblical times, “Making a life-changing “decision” apart from relationship to social communities would have seemed weird… Thus, we must be suspicious and critical of this modern individualism. In fact, young children are doing exactly what God says they should be doing when they show respect for Christian parents by trusting them and imitating their faith. Precisely in such ways faith grows and matures. The children’s lack of “independence” at this point is positively desirable and praiseworthy.”
Others will say that a baptism should be able to be remembered, so a child can look back on the event and have it carry some meaning and significance. I am sympathetic to this, and am undecided on the merit of the argument. However, knowing a concrete date that a child will or will not remember an event is difficult, if not impossible. Some research says the age is around 7. I have personally sometimes wondered if I would appreciate my own baptism more if it had happened when I was older. However, personal experience or feelings should definitely not be the deciding argument. I am not convinced that my feelings would have been legitimate or biblical reasons to delay baptism. After all, if we should wait until baptism “means more,” one could argue that we should delay baptism as long as possible! Would baptism not mean more and be a richer experience the later and more mature you are in your Christian faith? Yet that nearly defeats the initiatory purpose of baptism altogether. Full appreciation of baptism always comes later, for everyone who is baptized. Poythress comments: “The person who is baptized appreciates baptism not primarily by having a maximally rich subjective personal experience at the time of baptism, but by continually remembering that he has been baptized and is bound by divine obligations to the body of believers and to Christ himself.”
Still others will elevate the previously mentioned concern of giving false assurance to someone who may not be saved. There can be grave dangers of increasing nominal Christianity. Yes, childlike faith can often be shaken later on, and our children may fall away from the faith. And I agree we should be cautious in assuming the permanence of desires, dreams, and decisions of children. However, I will reiterate that baptism is not about assuring someone of their faith. Besides, this would be a concern for professions from anyone of any age, not just children. There are plenty of people who are baptized, of any age, that go on to apostasize or abandon their previously-professed faith. As Poythress says, “The problems of backsliding and apostasy are fundamentally the same for adults and for children. The practical realities of backsliding and apostasy do not destroy our obligations to treat adult converts as Christians. We treat them as Christians unless and until they prove themselves otherwise by apostasy. And we encourage, exhort, and strengthen them in every way in order to endeavor to guard them against apostasy (Hebrews 10:24-25). Likewise with children.” Even the apostles got it wrong sometimes. Consider the believers mentioned in the New Testament that apostasized, who must have been baptized. There are dangers of false professions, yes. But delaying baptism is not the solution. This concern can and should be thoroughly addressed by preaching and teaching the full gospel (along with its costly demands) at any and every opportunity. It is not addressed by delaying a biblical command, and, ironically, one of the important first demands that the gospel places on converts (Acts 2:38).
Yet another objection is that, regardless of the true purpose of baptism, children may have the tendency to view baptism as proof of salvation. This, arguably, does a disservice to children; and it is better to wait until the reality of their salvation can be more easily discerned. I agree that this is a valid concern. But the question is what the solution to the concern should be. Should it be withholding baptism until we discern fruit, or should it be better training of the purpose and point of baptism? Baptism might do the child a disservice. But withholding baptism can also do a disservice. Which is the greater disservice? And as for people seeing baptism as proof of salvation—this is a rampant issue with believers of all ages, not just children. So should we therefore withhold baptism from adults for the same issue? No, we should train them better.
Some point to the wrong tendency of some parents who push their young children to get baptized, instead of allowing it to be the child’s decision. This parental behaviour should absolutely be discouraged. And we should strive to ensure that it is the child’s choice to be baptized, not because their parents have pressured them. There is a balance to strike here, to be sure. But withholding baptism is not the balance.
I have heard the argument that knowledge and maturity are essential for a profession of faith to be credible. One must display a basic knowledge of the gospel and the meaning of baptism. I completely agree that someone should have this basic knowledge and understanding. But I would further say I believe children can possess this basic knowledge. All Baptists agree that this should be a conscious, informed choice. I argue that children can make such a decision. As for maturity, that has already been addressed.
One prominent objection arises when baptism is seen as the entrance to church membership. And children do not seem ready for meaningful church membership and the rights and responsibilities that correspond with it (voting in meetings, serving in offices, undergoing church discipline, etc.). For churches that immediately induct newly baptized believers into membership, this is indeed a legitimate consideration. For those that separate baptism from official membership (as our church does), this concern is moot. More could be said here, but it is really a discussion on church membership more than a discussion on baptism.
I will close by addressing one argument I find humourous: Jesus waited to be baptized until he was 30. Why shouldn’t we then wait to be baptized until we are mature? But Jesus’ baptism fulfilled a profoundly different purpose than believer’s baptism does. Jesus was not repenting of his sins. Jesus was not being united with himself in his death and resurrection by baptism (Romans 6:4). Jesus was not committing himself to a life of discipleship. Jesus’ life never required baptism for the same reasons we are baptized. Whatever the reasons for Jesus’ baptism (such as a public display of the Father’s approval and Spirit’s power, and/or an entry into ministry), they do not relate to us. So neither should the timing of his baptism relate to us. We are baptized for entirely different reasons. Additionally, this logic could be taken further to say: No one should be baptized under 30 years old. Are we prepared to say that? Of course not. Or even further: No one should be baptized outside of a river! Meeting the exact criteria for Jesus’ baptism leads us into absurdity.
A Plea for Charity
There are plenty of other solid arguments that could be made on each side of this issue. It is very easy to see why there is disagreement here. And much wisdom must be exercised in applying this in a local church. Ultimately, we must choose to be faithful to our best interpretations of God’s holy Word. And when there is quite a bit of silence, we must choose charity over disunity. I am happy to stand together with brothers and sisters that conclude differently than I do on this issue. I simply believe the most charitable course of action of all is to follow Christ’s commands myself and encourage all professing believers in Christ, young or old, to do the same. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20)
For further reading:
Indifferentism and Rigorism by Vern Poythress
On Mandatory Age Thresholds by Brent Barber
Should we Baptize Small Children? Yes by John Starke
Daddy, Am I A Christian? by Mark Jones
The Fear of Baptizing Children by Justin Taylor
Suffocating Christian Children by Julian Freeman (this link was broken last time I checked)
Matt Rudd 