1

Alpharic Research Institute

Centre for Research in Philosophy, Theology and
Ethics
Email: alpharicinstitute@gmail.com 09066927954

DEFENCE OF INFANT BAPTISM (HISTORIO-THEOLOGICAL APPROACH)

BY
GODSWILL OME UFERE
Email: uferegodswillmatthias@gmail.com, godswillmatthias99@gmail.com; __GSM: +2347045155575
JUNE, 2022

ABSTRACT

Baptism is one of the sacraments of the Church that is practiced by the Christian Church in
obedience to the command of Jesus Christ. It is a sacrament, wherein the washing with
water in the name of the Triune God does signify and seal believer’s engrafting into Christ.
Foakes-Jackson could well write, 'it is an unquestionable fact that from the very first
baptism was considered absolutely necessary for every person who entered the Christian
Community' (19). Yet, at the same time, it is also an unquestionable fact that this sacrament
has been for many years a storm centre of theological controversy and, indeed, remains so
to this day. There can be little doubt that one of the factors which has produced this
unfortunate situation has been the desire of Christians of various traditions to prove that
their view of baptism is the one which, par excellence, is true to the New Testament. This
research defends infant baptism which is a matter of contention among church
denominations through the lens of history and theology.

PERSPECTIVESON BAPTISM

According to “Baptism is a church’s act of affirming and portraying a believer’s union with Christ by
immersing him or her in water, and a believer’s act of publicly committing him or herself to Christ and his
people, thereby uniting a believer to the church and marking off him or her from the world” (82). It is almost
universally recognized as symbolic expression of a religious change. Those being baptized are ones rejecting
the old life and any former religious and embracing something new. They are placing their faith and life in
something they had rejected before that time. Christian Baptism has that same meaning. It is a public
testimony that the baptismal candidate are rejecting the old life of sin and one willfully and permanently
turning to Christ. They are putting all of their faith and hope in Christ and abandoning all else, either they
are doing this personally or it is being done on their behalf by their parents or guardians.
2

In reference to Vine, the term “baptism” stems from the Greek nouns baptisma (βάπτισμα), baptismos
(βάπτισμός), and baptistēs (βαπτιστής), which are derivative from the Greek verb baptizō (βαπτίζω). Thus,
baptism consists of the process of immersion, submersion and emergence. To baptise, primarily
frequentative form of baptō (βάπτω) means to dip (98-99). However, Dale postulates that “the word
baptism has nothing to do with modes of action. But baptism has to do, first and last, with condition” for the
“Greek verb baptizō is a general action verb and lacking in modal specificity” (3, 384). He reaches this
conclusion on the basis of his two studies, one upon the Classic baptism and another upon the Judaic
baptism. Whereas his work apropos the Classic baptism investigated the meaning of the word baptizō
(βαπτίζω) as determined by the usage of the classic Greek writers, that one upon the Judaic baptism
investigated its meaning following the usage of the Jewish and Patristic writers. It should be noted that his
studies were not bound only to the straight form of the word baptizō (βαπτίζω) but even intensely to the
available figurative and metaphorical narratives in relation to baptism.

Founding his conclusions upon the usage of the word baptizō (βαπτίζω) and not upon the definitions from
dictionaries, Dale assumes that “dictionaries show how words are used, not how they should be used.
Lexicons are the descriptive results of lexicographical investigation of interpretation, not normative
authorities for usage” (Countess 4). Thus, bearing in mind that to the Jewish writers the Hebrew language
was their native tongue as the Greek was to many of the Patrists and indeed to classic Greek writers, Dale
esteems that the classical Greek writers, the Jewish and patristic writers were in better position than any
other scholar to know the appropriate usage and meanings of the word baptizō (βαπτίζω) (19).

From the Greek stand point, the word ‘baptize’ or ‘baptism’ is a transliteration. That means that instead of
translating the meaning of the word from one language to another, the sound of the word itself has been
carried over. The Greek verb for baptism is baptizo, and the word baptism comes from Greek baptisima.
Drop the ‘a’ on the end of the noun and you have the English spelling we use today. There are about other
related words, which all have about the same meaning. Since this word does not have any inherit meaning in
English, it is necessary that we find out what the word means in the original Greek (McCain 173).

Baptism in classical Greek verb bapto is thought by some to be the root word, or the original word from
which all other baptism related words came. Though the word has many shades of meaning, bapto actually
means ‘dip’ or to ‘dip under’. It was used of a blacksmith who dips a red-hot piece of steel into water to cool
it and temper with it. The same word was used for dyeing garments much the way. The garments is
repeatedly dipped into a dye pit unity it reached the desired colour. (McCain 174). The word was also used
of a ship that dipped- that is sank beneath the water. The related verb baptizo appears to been used in a
broader sense, in an ancient mythological story, of a mouse thrust a frog through with a reed.
3

Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, and serves to put a visible difference between those who
belong to the church and those who are outside the church (WCF 27.1). It is to be applied only to those who
are in the visible church, and their children, who are considered to be included in God’s covenant people.
(WLC, Q166).

Baptism is an outward sign that is a “testimony of divine grace” toward the covenant people of God, and an
“attestation of piety” on their part toward him (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.16.21). It is the
sign of initiation that represents that the individual has been received into the community of the church,
engrafted in Christ, and can be considered among God’s people (Reichelderfer 22). Baptism in the New
Testament has the same significance as circumcision in the Old Testament. As the covenant sign of
circumcision was administered to infants in the Old Testament, baptism is to be administered as the sign of
the covenant to infants from the time of the New Testament forward (Reichelderfer 23).

As a sign, baptism serves as a “material element” that is tangible to the senses of what is being signified—a
promise that has made to and accepted by those who are baptized. Through the sacrament, an inward
spiritual grace is signified and sealed. The external sign becomes a means used by the Holy Spirit in
communicating divine grace (Berkhof 617-618). Baptism is a sign of the covenant initiated with Abraham
that was primarily spiritual in nature and is essentially identical with the new covenant. God appointed
infants to be included in the benefits of the covenant and declared infants to receive circumcision as a sign
and seal. They were considered to be an integral part of the people of Israel. The sign served to remind
Abraham and the Israelites of the covenant that was made with God, as well as the promises and obligations
contained within the covenant. The sign adds nothing to the covenant, and God is not obligated to fulfill his
promise because of the sign associated with it (Ross 68). God appointed baptism to take the place of
circumcision as the initial sign and seal of the covenant of grace in the New Testament era. Since children
received the covenantal sign in the Old Testament era, it is presumed that they have a right to receive it in
the New Testament era (Berhkof 619).

Calvin likens the sacramental seal to that which is placed upon government documents and other public acts
(Calvin 4.14.5). As a seal, baptism serves as a mark of authenticity, security, ownership and authority of a
covenant relationship with God. The promise of God is sealed by the Holy Spirit who works salvation in all
who believe (Wood and Howard 1072). The seal of baptism is God’s identifying mark on the sheep of his
flock (Packer 209).

The description of the sacraments as signs and seals includes a refutation of a purely symbolic interpretation.
The terms “sign and seal” reference an act of God, the signifier and sealer of his promise. Berkouwer, in
quoting Bavinck, says the recipient of baptism is marked with “a spiritual sign, different from grace”
4

through a “spiritual mark imprinted on the soul” (134). According to Berkouwer, a “profound
interrelationship” exists between the “sealing of the promise through baptism and the sealing of believers,”
because the individual who recognizes the sacrament as sign and seal by faith, is then sealed in the sense that
he has accepted God’s promise. Therefore, baptism is a sign and seal of God’s promise, and at the same
time a seal of redemption for those whose belief rests on that promise. For this reason, baptism is never an
empty symbol, as there is an “undetachable” relation of the baptismal promise with regeneration and the
renewal of the Holy Spirit, with justification and sanctification and with the incorporation into Christ’s
Church” (Berkouwer 136).

Baptism signifies sharing in the death of Christ and coming up into a newness of life (Mark 10:38; Luke
12:50; Romans 6:3-5). By sharing in the death of Christ through baptism, the one who is being baptized
renounces his or her former ways of life. The person dies to his or her sins and validates that “old things
have passed away” (2 Cor. 5:17). As one is being immersed in water, one is “buried with Him (Christ) in
baptism” (Col. 2:12) for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Now, as one comes up out of the water, the
person shares in the resurrection of Christ. One becomes “alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom.
6:11). The Holy Spirit is poured on the person (Acts 2:38; Matt. 3:13-17; Acts 10:38), and he or she
becomes empowered to live a life that produces the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-25; Col. 3:1, 2).

Baptism as practiced by the Jewish people during the time of Christ and before that symbolized repentance
and purification, however, it was not identical to that of Christian baptism as we see in the New Testament.
Baptism, here then, does not denote ritual cleansing for Christ; rather, “it inaugurates the ministry of Jesus
which will be characterized by the power of the Spirit of the new age” (Dockery 57). The next time baptism
is mentioned in the Gospels comes at the end of Jesus’ ministry.

Baptism is not only symbolic of death; rather, it specifically represents a uniting with Christ in his death.
Paul writes, “our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be rendered powerless
so that we may no longer be enslaved to sin,” having been “raised with him through faith in the working of
God, who raised him from the dead” (Rom 6:6; Col 2:12). Believers, who have been set free from the
bondage of sin, are now made free and alive to God in Christ (6:7–11). In Galatians, Paul uses different
imagery to represent the believer’s union with Christ by referring to baptism as a putting on of Christ (3:27).
The reality of this event is that “the baptized ‘took off’ their old life and ‘put on Christ’, thereby becoming
one with him, and so qualified to participate in the life of the kingdom of God.
5

THE CONCEPT OF INFANT BAPTISM

According to Redmond, Infant baptism “is the practice of baptising infants or young children” (231).Nearly
all Christian denominations practice infant baptism, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern
Orthodox churches, and most Protestant denominations. In recent church history, the first churches to
practice only adult baptism were the Anabaptist churches in the 16th century. Historically, there is no large
segment of the church prior to the 16th century that practiced only adult baptism. Most of the controversy
centers around the practice of the apostolic church. The earliest church fathers, while mentioning and
describing baptism, give no specific information of infant baptisms, nor do they deny their practice. This is
the reason that the practice of the early church must be found in the biblical evidence.

 Infant Baptism from the Early Church Fathers

Following the writings of the Early church fathers, the earliest specific references concerning infant baptism
come from Tertullian (ca. A.D. 200). He wrote:

“But they whose office it is to baptize, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. . . . And
so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of
baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if
baptism itself is not so indispensably necessary—that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into
danger . . . ? The Lord does indeed say, ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.’ Let them ‘come,’ then,
while they are growing up; . . . let them become Christians when they have become able to know
Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the ‘remission of sins’? More caution will be
exercised in worldly matters, so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with
divine! . . . For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred—in whom the ground of
temptation is prepared. . . . If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its
reception more than its delay; sound faith is secure of salvation” (On Baptismch. 18, 677-78).

While Tertullian himself taught that baptism should be deferred (as well as marriage), he recognized the
practice of infant baptism as customary in his time. Worthy of note is that other Christian writers, such as
Irenaeus and Hippolytus, who lived at the same time as Tertullian, did not list infant baptism among the
various “heresies” they sought to combat, which means that they approved of it.

There is general agreement that direct evidence for the baptism of children is found in statements made by
Tertullian in 200 A.D. (Jeremias 9). In these statements, Tertullian actually advocates for the delayed
baptism of little children so that the sponsors of those being baptized do not risk failing to fulfill their
baptismal promises, or become disappointed if the child were not to live up to baptismal expectations.
6

Tertullian sees the critical importance of baptism as justification for its delay until the belief is evident in the
individual (Tertullian 69). These words mark the earliest direct reference to infant baptism in church history,
but a logical assumption can be made that the practice originated before this time. Infant baptism may have
been very well entrenched as a practice in the church at that point (Leither 55). The working of the Spirit is
seen as being operative in baptism. As the Spirit of God hovered over the waters at creation, so he does over
the waters of baptism. After the invocation of God is pronounced, the Spirit sanctifies the waters for
himself, and the waters are endowed with sanctifying powers.

In baptism, the individual’s spirit is washed in the waters and the flesh is cleansed spiritually. Those
baptized do not actually obtain the Holy Spirit at baptism, but “are cleansed and prepared for the Holy
Spirit” (Tertullian 50). There is an “application of hands” in the sacrament that is connected to the “old
sacramental rite in which Jacob blessed his grandsons,” and the waters are connected to those of the
“deluge” from the time of Noah. The fire of judgment waits for those who have gone through the baptismal
waters and return to sin. Baptism is also to be seen as a “sign of warning to us” (Tertullian 56). The efficacy
of baptism is found only in the work of Jesus Christ, “the passion and the resurrection,” as without these
there is no benefit to baptism. However, baptism is not salvific in itself as Tertullian is very clear that one is
saved by faith.

Hippolytus, in the Apostolic Tradition (215 A.D.), describes children being baptized as made up of “some
who could speak and others who are not yet able to speak” (Hippolytus 45). The children were to be
baptized first with those unable to offer a profession of faith themselves spoken for by their parents or
relatives. The rite included a renunciation of Satan and an anointing with the “oil of exorcism.” There was a
placing of a hand on the head of the individual being baptized during which a response to the creed was
made by the person being baptized or those who spoke on the behalf of an infant after which the baptism
was performed. The bishop then offered a prayer to God who had made those baptized worthy to obtain the
“remission of sins through the laver of the Holy Spirit of regeneration.” Anointing with the oil of
thanksgiving then took place (Hippolytus 47).

Origen responded to questions about infant baptism and characterized it as originating in the “tradition from
the apostles” (Origen 15). The statements of Cyprian, in writing for the Council at Carthage (251-53 A.D.),
provide evidence of theological positions regarding infant baptism being taken by the church during the
same time. Ambrose of Milan (339-337 A.D.) justified infant baptism by connecting it with the Old
Testament rite of circumcision. Cyril of Alexandria described the baptism of infants as “the anointing of
initiation” (Jeremias 94-95).
7

Augustine (400 A.D.) claimed the practice of infant baptism was based upon apostolic authority, but never
cites the teaching of anyone earlier than Cyprian (Jewett16). Augustine acknowledges the practice had
become widespread in the church, and that it had been handed down by apostolic authority (Ferguson 203).
It is a sacrament of “remission of sins” from which “no one should be
barred” from infant to adult. Augustine describes the meaning of baptism as a dying to sin and a rebirth in
the “baptismal font.” Infants die to original sin only, while adults die to the sins they have committed which
are added to the sin “brought with them at birth” (Augustine 207). This “washing of regeneration” has to do
“more with the hope of future goods than with the retaining or attaining of present goods” (Augustine 222).

The ancient church recognized that the Holy Spirit was present and at work during the baptismal rite,
whether it was being applied to an adult or an infant. It was believed that the Spirit endowed the waters with
sanctifying power, thus the efficacy attributed to the sacrament was recognized by the church to be real. The
symbolism of the rite spoke to the reality that the Spirit was working through the baptism of the individual.

The ancient church made connections with the Old Testament in developing its doctrine of baptism. The
relationship between circumcision and baptism is found early in church history. The covenantal structures
of blessing and curse are present. The blessing of children rooted in the actions of Jacob are viewed
alongside the waters of judgment from the days of Noah. The efficacy of baptism is not found in the water
itself, but in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. One is not saved by baptism, but only by faith.
Included in the early development of baptism was an element of exorcism, or renunciation of Satan,
therefore the rite recognized both positive and negative spiritual elements that were at work.

This sacrament of initiation was not just symbolic in nature, but signified the real working of God in the life
of the one being baptized.

As the understanding of infant baptism is examined during the Middle Ages, the doctrine derived from the
early church is carried forward in development and is at points negatively affected during this period.
Children are in need of baptism because of being born in original sin. Infants are nurtured in the “bosom of
the mother Church” and receive salvation “through the act of the church” in baptism. Those who die in
infancy without baptism are excluded from heaven. The sacrament of confirmation was added for adults to
correspond with baptism for infants. Through confirmation, the baptized become full members of the
Christian church (Schaff 710-712).

 Infant Baptism from the Middle Ages Through the Reformation

The baptismal rites for infants that were in place just prior to the Reformation were adapted forms of those
performed in ancient Rome. There was a reading of the gospel story where Jesus blessed the children who
8

came to him, after which the priest said “through these sacred words our Lord remits all of our trespasses
and sins” (Old 7-8). After admonishing the godparents to teach the child the Creed, the priest, placed his
hand on the head of the child and recited it thus delivering the faith to the godparents who would then
deliver it to the infant. The priest is confessing faith for the child. Baptism was seen as the entrance to, and
foundation of, all the other sacraments which formed the system of salvation. In baptism, God the Father
regenerates the infant by water and the Holy Spirit, and has given remission of sins through Jesus Christ
unto eternal life. This idea of baptismal regeneration caused many parents to seek baptism for their children
shortly after birth even if it was to be conducted by a midwife.

In this subjective view, baptism becomes essential for salvation. Baptismal regeneration would be a major
area of revision when Reformed doctrines of infant baptism were developed as the Reformers held a much
different understanding of justification and substitution (Bromiley 25). The Lutherans were the exception
within those considered to be Reformation churches as they retained baptismal regeneration along with other
elements of the Roman sacramental system (Schaff 603).

As the initiator of the Reformation, Luther made three significant revisions the Roman sacrament of
baptism. There was some omission of exorcisms and the insertion of the Lord’s Prayer as the blessing of the
child. There was no admonition for the godparents. The most significant change was Luther’s use of his
Great Flood Prayer in which both the stories of Noah and the Flood, and the Red Sea passage, are explained
in the New Testament as types of baptism. The significance of this change is the indication that along with
the blessing element of baptism, there is an accompanying indication of judgment (1 Peter 3:20; 21; 1
Corinthians 10:1-4). Luther also brings emphasis to intercession as one of the most significant things the
church can do for a child at baptism (Old 37-40).

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration was rejected by those of the Reformed church of Strasbourg (1524-
25). Bucer drew special attention to the idea that baptism was an outward sign of an inward cleansing from
sin. All who were present for the baptism prayed that Christ would baptize the child in the Spirit and purify
him from all sin. The washing of water was a sign of both regeneration and sanctification in the infant (52).
The propriety of the rite was based upon the bond between the circumcision of infants under the law and the
baptism of infants under the gospel. Parents were instructed that as they brought their children to be
baptized, they were offering them up to God and promising before the church to raise them in the Christian
faith. As the child of Christian parents, the infant was considered to be a member of the church and the
parental promises were made in the presence of the congregation.

In Zurich, Zwingli placed great emphasis on the ecclesiology of baptism. It is the initiation, or entry point,
into the church. Zwingli saw ecclesiology in covenantal terms. God covenanted with his people in his
9

divine, electing grace. Circumcision was a covenantal sign of God’s people in the Old Testament, as
baptism is a covenantal sign in the New Testament. Gentiles had now been added into God’s covenant
people (Acts 2:38-39).29 After Zwingli, Bullinger taught that a covenantal sign contained within it an
element of promise, and that baptism was a sign of God’s “gracious promise” for the cleansing of sin that
would be accomplished by the Holy Spirit. The unity between both covenantal signs is found in the faith of
parents which is required in order for the sign to be applied (Schenck 27). The sign of baptism was a badge
that identified one as a child of God.31

The early Reformers were consistent in teaching that the Holy Spirit was at work applying the benefits of
Christ’s redemption from the very beginning of life before the ability to make a confession of faith was
present. Jeremiah 1:5 and Luke 1:41, along with 1 Corinthians 7:14 were offered to support this position. In
agreeing with this view, Calvin taught that regeneration included manifestations of new life that occurred
throughout the life of an individual (Schenck 28-29). Baptism marks the entrance of the infant into the
visible church through a presumptive regeneration that was based upon the faith of believing parents. He
did not teach baptismal regeneration, but baptized infants based upon their status as members of the visible
church from before birth. There is a regenerative working of the Spirit throughout life resulting in the child
growing into an understanding of his baptism (Calvin 4.16.21).

 Infant Baptism from the Reformation through Modernity

In 18th century Europe, the practice of baptizing infants as members of the Christian community had
become distorted in that there was little regard for the requirement of faith among parents. The acceptance
of the “Half-Way Covenant” in New England was reflective of this mindset. In this arrangement, parents
acknowledged God’s claim on their lives and agreed to submit themselves to the church’s discipline, but
stopped short of professing conversion. Thus, some were admitted to the church that were “elect seed,”
while others were labeled “church seed” (Schenck, 54-55). This was a significant digression from the
covenantal doctrine that was foundational to the Reformed view of infant baptism. In England, the Puritans
took a stand against the practice of baptizing all infants, as well as the position that only adult converts
should be baptized. John Owen, in representing the Reformed view, speaks for the baptism of infants that
are born to believing parents in keeping with the biblical covenantal structure (Owen, n.pg). In New
England, Jonathan Edwards identified two groups of individuals within the church as “members of the
church general” and “members in complete standing” (Edwards 154).

Edwards rejected the practice of administering baptism to the children of “general” members of the church
as they were not required to make a complete profession of the Christian faith. Only the children of those
who were in “complete standing” were eligible to receive baptism (320).
10

In taking the covenantal position, Edwards believed only adults were able to make a complete profession,
and when they did so, those who were parents necessarily had their children baptized as members of
themselves. In doing so, the parents were offering their child up to God in a sacrament which was a “seal of
the covenant of grace,” just as they offered themselves up to God when the professed faith in him and
accepted the covenant he graciously provided (Edwards 322). The benefit of carrying the “outward badge”
of Christianity was tied directly to one’s actually being Christian. In fact, the effect of carrying such a
“badge” without the benefit of parents fully committed to raising an individual “in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord,” often results in the hardening of the individual by God (Edwards 327).

The reaction of the Great Awakening against the formalism that had gripped the church in Europe and the
American colonies caused an emphasis to be placed on the experience of conviction and conversion which
was not only expected of adults, but also was expected of children as well. There was a shift away from the
doctrine of presumptive regeneration as the church moved toward recognizing only those who gave a
credible profession as being Christian (Schenck 71). As revivalism gained a foothold within the church,
covenant children were at best seen as “quasi” church members, and at worst were treated as “enemies of
God” (Schenck 80). It is reported that within fifty years’ time during the 1800s, the number of baptized
infants had declined from one in five to one in twenty church members (Schenck 88).

In the modern era, Reformed theologians sought to return infant baptism to predominance in Protestant
churches. Charles Hodge saw the justification of infant baptism as being tied to the nature of the church. The
sacraments belong only to church members. If membership in the church required a profession of faith, then
infants would not be considered eligible to receive the sacrament of baptism. In order to defend infant
baptism, it was necessary to “attain and authenticate” the understanding that the Church includes the
children of believers. Scripture presents the fact that the church does not consist entirely of regenerate
people. The church is a field in which both wheat and tares grow, and one in which Judas, the betrayer of
Jesus, was given a privileged position of leadership (Hodge 546).

According to Hodge, the church consists of both the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, and those in the
New Testament who professed faith in Christ. Since children were included in the church of the Old
Testament and were initiated into the church through the rite of circumcision, children of the New
Testament church were included and initiated into the church through the rite of baptism. The children of
church members are entitled to be baptized and the entire congregation assumed responsibility for their
Christian education as members of the visible body (Hodge 548). Hodge emphasized children as members of
the visible church as a covenant community which was a mixed group consisting of those who were elect
and those who were reprobate. Although the church had a role in seeking a credible profession from its
members, it ultimately rested in the knowledge that God alone is able to discern the heart.
11

Louis Berkhof described the covenant with Abraham as being spiritual with some national elements. This
spiritual covenant is still in force and “essentially identical to the new covenant.” God chose to include
infants in the benefits of the covenant and they received circumcision as a sign and seal. God replaced
circumcision with baptism as the introductory sign and seal of the covenant of grace. Since children
received the sign and seal of the covenant under the old epoch, the presumption is that they are to receive the
sign and seal under the new epoch (Berhkof 632-34). The church is to view infants as potential heirs of
salvation and treat them as being required to live under the condition of the covenant, and is required to treat
them as covenant breakers if they fail to meet its conditions.

Berkhof disagrees with those who baptize infants on the basis of presumptive regeneration, but only because
they are included in the covenant by birth to believing parents (635). In considering the baptism of infants as
a means of grace, Berkhof acknowledges the possibility of regeneration in children as receiving the “seed of
faith” at the earliest of times, and that the operation of baptism is not limited to the occasion of its
administration. Baptism is also a means of grace for the parents as it serves to strengthen their faith in God,
giving them assurance that their child has a right to participate in the covenant of grace, and to strengthen
their resolve to provide for the Christian nurture of the child (641-42).

John Murray presents the basic argument for infant baptism as being the progressive unfolding of the New
Testament system and the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant which implies a “unity and continuity” of
the church throughout the Old Testament and New Testament periods. The church of the Old Testament
included not just those who were old enough to confess faith but also their infant children, therefore the
church of the New Testament included children as well. The command to apply the covenantal sign and seal
to infants has not been retracted, and still remains in force. Murray acknowledges that not everyone who
receives the sign and seal of baptism actually participates in the grace it signifies and is an actual heir of
eternal life, and therefore, sees no merit in the doctrine of presumptive regeneration. He also sees the
justification for baptism to found in the divine authority and command of God alone. The basis of baptism
is the covenantal relationship that God had established with his people, the church, and the sustaining of that
relationship through the children of those in the covenant community. In baptism, both union with Christ
and membership in the church is signified.

Meredith Kline indicates that Reformed theology’s tendency to focus on the judicial and spiritual blessings
of baptism is “unduly restricted.” Given the correspondence that Reformed theology recognizes between
baptism and circumcision, Kline indicates that its theology of baptism should be enlarged to include both
“benedictions and maledictions” in a more comprehensive symbol of eschatological judgment (50).
12

 Infant Baptism from Modernity through Post-Modern Times

In the post-modern era, the Presbyterian understanding of infant baptism appears to follow two general lines
of thought. One group presents an understanding that is consistent with the Reformed doctrine of infant
baptism that has developed over time. The appropriateness of infant baptism is linked to circumcision as a
rite of initiation that is administered to adult converts and their children. Baptism represents the beginning
of a life characterized by faith and discipleship in Christ (Clark, n.pg). It is not merely symbolic in meaning
as it initiates the recipient into a covenant relationship with God, brings them into the membership of the
visible church and calls for an internal washing by faith (Pratt, n.pg). Baptism is a sign of citizenship in the
new covenant community in Christ, an act of obedience that is applied to both adults and children, and a
sign of a promise of forgiveness of sin and adoption that is freely offered to all by faith (Orner 57). Baptized
infants are recipients of God’s covenant grace, not saving grace. By having their child baptized, parents are
trusting God for his provision, protection and deliverance of their child from sin’s penalty and power. God’s
power and faithfulness are declared in the rite of infant baptism. The water serves as a physical sign that the
covenant is real and that God will honor his covenant promise.

The other group expresses an understanding of infant baptism that they characterize as being historically
Reformed, and one which Reformed churches have drifted away from over time. In this understanding,
“baptismal regeneration” in the sense that it was used by Calvin and the early Reformers, is emphasized.
The sign of baptism is not just a symbol of God’s saving grace, but is a “powerful, transforming action of
God.” To say that baptism is just a symbol is to empty it of its efficacy.” They argue for a broader
understanding of regeneration which can begin at the earliest points of an individual’s life and new creation
becomes increasingly evident from that point forward. “God works powerfully and savingly” through
baptism as a means of grace. The Spirit includes the child in the “elect community, the church” through it.
It is an initiation into the covenant of grace, and therefore bestows privileges and enforces obligations to the
one who is baptized” (Lusk, n.pg). There is a power that is attributed to baptism. As a “rite,” baptism
changes one’s status, alters personal identity and expresses God’s favor as it penetrates the heart and
cleanses the conscience (Leithart 3). Baptism combined with faith brings about union with Christ. These
individuals assert that baptism does not cause one to be automatically saved (Wilson 236). The saving grace
offered through baptism is conferred by the Holy Spirit at the appointed time.

 Reformed Understanding of Infant Baptism

In order to understand infant baptism from the Presbyterian perspective it is apparent that one explore
Reformed theology as it pertains to the nature of the church, along with baptism in terms of it being a sign
13

and seal of the covenant, how both blessing and curse are associated with the rite, and the efficacy that
accompanies it.

John Calvin defines the church as including adults, infants and children, and containing both elect and non-
elect individuals (Calvin 4.16.21). The visible church is the “mother of believers” through which one is
conceived, given birth, nourished and kept until death. There are those in the church who reject spiritual
food, and therefore, deserve to perish (Calvin 4.1.4, 4.1.5). For this reason, the visible church is seen as a
mixture of good and bad men, believers and unbelievers. All men who have been adopted by God into the
visible church since the beginning of the world were covenanted into that relationship by the law and
doctrine (Calvin 2.10.1).

The Westminster Confession of Faith identifies the visible church as “all those throughout the world that
profess the true religion, and their children.” It is the kingdom of Christ, the “house and family of God,” and
there is “no ordinary possibility of salvation” offered outside of it (25.2). Christ has given the “ministry,
oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints (25.3). Following the theology
of Calvin, the Confession affirms that the “purest Churches” are subject “mixture and error” (25.5).

Charles Hodge identifies the visible church as a divine institution that is a mixture of regenerate and
unregenerate individuals. According to Hodge, the church that is described in the New Testament is a
continuation of the church of the Old Testament (Hodge 548). The Lord of the Old Testament is our
covenant God and Father, and our savior, Jesus Christ, was the savior of those who lived before he came in
the flesh (Hodge 55). The conditions for admission to the church in the old epoch is the same in the new
epoch. These conditions are a credible profession of faith, a promise of obedience and submission to the
initiatory rite. Since infants were admitted to the church of the Old Testament, they are to be admitted to the
church of the New Testament.8

Louis Berkhof comments that the visible church is the embodiment of the Kingdom of God in the world. It
participates of the character of the invisible church as the Kingdom of God is realized through it. It is also
shares in the flaws that it is exposed to by the world. Jesus’ parable of the wheat and tares confirms this fact
(570). There has always been just one visible church that manifested itself in different epochs from the time
of the patriarchs, to that of Moses and into that of the New Testament. In each epoch, the visible church has
been identified by the pure preaching of the word, the right administration of the sacraments, and the faithful
exercise of discipline.

R. B. Kuiper points out that only God in his omniscience knows who the regenerate and unregenerate are in
the church, and that it is presumptuous for leaders to identify certain individuals as “born again ones” within
14

the church (27). The church is made up of people with whom God has established his covenant of grace.
Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ, and their children, are considered to be full members of the church.

According to George Eldon Ladd, the New Testament idea of church is rooted in the Old Testament
concept of Israel as the people of God. The establishment of this fellowship by Christ is directly connected
to the people of Israel of the Old Testament. This group was a mixed fellowship from Christ’s earliest
inception of it, and that this characteristic will continue until the eschatological kingdom. It is the Kingdom
of God, but is not the ideal kingdom as it includes some who are not God’s children. Ladd states that while
entrance into the Kingdom means participating in the church, participating in the church does not necessarily
mean participating in the Kingdom (108). Similarly, Donald Guthrie points out that the term used by Christ
for the church in the Matthew 16:18 (ekklēsia) is the same used in the LXX for the congregation of Israel
(Guthrie 711).

Peter Leithart takes a different approach in describing the church. He prefers the terms of “historical” over
visible, and “eschatological” over invisible. According to Leithart, the traditional use of visible and
invisible leads one to believe that these two churches co-exist, whereas it is more accurate to speak of one as
the church of history which is mixed and imperfect, and the other as the church that is perfected when Christ
returns (59).

He sees the overwhelming number of references to the body of Christ that appear in the New Testament as
pertaining to the historical church—“a visible, historical community of professing believers” (60). By using
a historical/eschatological model, Leithart sees the historical church to be in the process of glorification,
whereas the eschatological church is in the final state of glory. The historical church is the bride of Christ,
united to him in one flesh, and is treated by Jesus as his own body. Therefore, the visible church is the body
of Christ in a real sense. Membership in the visible church involves being united, or married, to Christ (72).
Some who enter membership in the church may eventually fall away from it, but while they are in the
church they share in the life which is the church’s salvation of the world. Membership in the body of Christ
doesn’t occur without being connected to the head, and no connection to the head is possible without being
joined to the body.

THE BASIS FOR INFANT BAPTISM

The doctrine of infant baptism is central to the truth of the scripture because baptism is the mark of God’s
covenant of grace; the truth of God’s covenant to all the doctrines of God’s Word. Many Reformed
churches, while holding formally to infant baptism, nevertheless do not consider the doctrine in connection
with and as related to the truth of God’s covenant. Or, if they do, an erroneous and basically Armenian view
15

of God’s covenant vitiates the doctrine of infant baptism as well as other doctrines and makes a solid biblical
apologetic all but impossible (Hanko 2).

The subjects of baptism according to Reformed, fall into two common groups. First, there are fully grown
person who have come to trust in Christ. Explicit examples are established in Acts 2: 41 and 8: 36 – 38.
Second, young children along with even children were as well baptized in New Testament period.
According to Pieper, “proof is seen in the fact that children were brought to Jesus to be touched (Mark 10:
13 – 16). In addition, we read in Acts that entire family were baptized (Acts 11: 14; 16: 15, 31 – 34; 8: 8). It
is sensible to suppose that for the most part of these families were not make up wholly of fully grown
person. Young children are fraction of the people of God, exactly as certainly as, in the Old Testament; they
were component of the nation of Israel” (277). A crucial issue between those who hold to infant baptism and
those who do not is whether God saves his church in the line of continued generations. It is clear that all the
children of the Israelites were circumcised in infancy.

The Reformed maintain that this was commanded because God saves his church in the line of continued
generations. Presbyterian and Reformed Churches belief that baptism, whether of infants or fully grown
person, is a “symbol as well as seal of the covenant of grace”, and that baptism allows the people baptized
into the physical church. Being an affiliate of the physical church does not promise the act of saving from
sin or it consequences; although it does offer the child with many benefits, including that of one’s exacting
congregation agreeable to help in the bringing up of that youngster in the way he should go, thus when he is
aged he will not turn from it. Elect children (the predestined for salvation) who die in childhood are with
faith considered regenerate on the basis of God’s covenant promises in the covenant of grace. Members of
the physical church, as well as young children, are considered to be electing by faith unless and until they
prove otherwise by committing apostasy.

Presbyterian and a lot of Reformed Churches view children baptism as the New Testament shape of
circumcision in the Jewish covenant (Joshua 24: 15). Circumcision did not produce trust in the 8-day-old
Jewish covenant people Israel. Similarly, baptism doesn’t produce faith; rather it is a mark of membership in
the physical covenant community” (Wikipedia 2). It then means that Presbyterian and Reformed churches
perceive true Christians’ children to be members of the physical Church which is the covenant community.
They as well see true Christians’ children to be full members of the local church everywhere their parents
are members and members of the universal church (the set of all true believers who make up the invisible
church) except and pending when they prove otherwise. Baptism is the symbol of person within the
covenant of grace and in the universal church, even though rebirth is not inseparably connected with
baptism.
16

The Reformers on the other hand supposed that “the children of believers could and should be baptized. This
is based on several lines of Biblical evidence: if New Testament baptism replaces Old Testament
circumcision as a sign of inclusion into the visible covenant community, then logically, the same people who
were circumcised in the Old Testament should be baptized in the New. Since, in the Old Testament, all male
babies were required to be circumcised, therefore, at least in the New Testament era, all male babies should
be baptized did not mean that he personally had saving faith; the entire history of the “Old” Testament is
replete with examples of circumcised Israelites who worshipped idols and were condemned by God. But,
circumcision did mark God’s people from the pagan world and was a sign that they were the special
recipients of His grace and mercy” (Highlands Reformed Church 3).

In the New Testament, “women were also baptized which means that God at the present needs His covenant
mark to be given to women as well as men. Logically then, female babies should now receive the covenant
sign as well as male babies. The line of evidence for giving baptizing to the children of professing parents is
found in Acts 2: 38 – 39 wherein the Apostles clearly state that the promise of regeneration, forgiveness and
baptism are given to you and your children. The Reformers believed that salvation was a sovereign act of
God and that he has promised (generally speaking) to save the children of believing parents (1 Cor 7: 14)”
(Highlands Reformed Church 3). Thus we can infer that baptizing person’s children in Reformed Churches
is a work of faith on the part of Christian parents, claiming the promises of God to keep their children. Once
more it brings the children into the physical expression of the family of God, marking them off from the
world.

The Reformers on the other hand discarded any “magical” part of baptism; they did not consider that just
because they performed a certain rite that either they or their children were automatically saved (the view
called “baptismal regeneration”). They recognized that while baptism was an order that we have to obey,
there might be extraordinary situations or conditions where a person might well be saved, although never
baptized (WCF 28: 5) (Highlands Reformed Church 3). Baptism thus is an outward mark that one belongs to
God; however, there might well be those who truly belong to Christ who have never been baptized; and
there are many who are baptized who by no means come to saving faith.

Therefore to them, infant baptism incorporates a child into the Body of Christ, so making him a member of
Christ, a redeemed member of the order of Christ’s new creation. It is in this vein that Reformed
theologians in Britain are again urging that from this basic point of view infant baptism better accords with
God’s mode of incorporating men into the redeemed society than does the baptism of mature believers
(Beasley-Murray 369-370). It will not be possible for most Churches to maintain the practice without
minimizing the participation in salvation and the church. This is why many members of Reformed Churches
17

incline to the view that full membership in the Church is not accorded to infants baptized; that must await
their later confirmation.

The Presbyterian Church holds high this value of Christian community, especially when we talk about the
meaning of baptism. “In Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, God unites persons through baptism
regardless or race, ethnicity, age, sex, disability, geography, or theological conviction” (PCUSA Book of
Order, F-1.0403). This quote is a good final word for what we mean when we say “church”. The church is
not a group of people who all look the same, think the same, or even wear the same clothing. The visible
church ought to reflect the wide diversity of people in God’s good world. The Presbyterian Church strives to
be an inclusive community, just as Christ Jesus was inclusive in his approach to table fellowship and
ministry. The church does not always live up to this inclusive ideal, but strives to follow Jesus Christ to
create a more accepting environment where all people can feel included in the fellowship of the people who
belong to Christ (see Galatians 3:27-28; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13).

Baptism is a sign and seal of our cleansing from sin, and our being grafted into Christ (Book of Service,
n.pg). In the Presbyterian Church, the words used to describe the sacrament of baptism are equally as
important as the water itself. The Teaching Elder (Minister) will spend time with those who desire baptism
for themselves or for their children, teaching them the meaning of baptism and nurturing the faith God has
given them. Because baptism has a long and sometimes complex history, there are a variety of beliefs, some
of them Christian and some not Christian, that arise around the event of baptism. Teaching helps to preserve
the integrity of the sacrament as faithful to Jesus Christ and nurture helps to preserve the integrity of the
people involved as genuine to themselves.

Infants cannot make such a profession of faith and children cannot understand the implication of this
profession of faith. Because this is the case, some Christian churches do not baptize infants or children.
Christian churches who practice infant baptism, as it is called, do so emphasizing the biblical precedent that
faith in Christ is not ultimately dependent on the individual’s decision but is the result of God’s free and
gracious gift (Ephesians 2:8-10 and John 3:5-8).

“The baptism of children witnesses to the truth that God’s love claims people before they are able to respond
in faith. The baptism of those who enter the covenant of membership upon their own profession of faith in
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior witnesses to the truth that God’s gift of grace calls forth a response of
faithfulness” (Book of Order, G-1.0301). Of course, the infant or child who is baptized will grow up and
seek to discover her own sense of identity, community, and purpose. This is why within a Presbyterian
Church, the visible church also makes a promise at the event of baptism. “The congregation as a whole, on
behalf of the church universal, assumes responsibility for nurturing the baptized person in the Christian life.
18

The intentionality behind this promise will vary from church to church. Some churches may assume that
those baptized will become part of their worshipping life and part of their Christian education process.
Others will go so far as to provide a sponsor, specifically designated to the role of nurturing the baptized
person. Sometimes that sponsor will be present at the baptism and will make their own vow committing
themselves to the role of nurture.

Many churches who practice infant baptism will have a time of formal Christian Education during the
transitional time when a person moves from childhood to adulthood (adolescence). This is often called
“confirmation”. At confirmation, the baptized person makes their own profession of faith in Jesus Christ, and
so confirms their baptismal identity as well as their part in the church community. The church nurtures those
baptized as children and calls them to make public their personal profession of faith and their acceptance of
responsibility in the life of the church. When these persons are ready, they shall be examined by the
session. After the session has received them as active members they shall be presented to the congregation
during a service of public worship. In that service the church shall confirm their baptismal identity (Book of
Order, W-4.2003). The profession of faith in Jesus Christ is one of the three vows a person makes at baptism
within the Presbyterian Church. The Teaching Elder (Minister) may ask these vows at baptism.

The Presbyterian Church, USA, holds that,

"When a child is being presented for Baptism, ordinarily the parent(s) or one(s) rightly exercising
parental responsibility shall be an active member of the congregation. Those presenting children for
Baptism shall promise to provide nurture and guidance within the community of faith until the child
is ready to make a personal profession of faith and assume the responsibility of active church
membership" (Book of Order, W-2.3014).

The vow of the parent(s) at a child’s baptism takes seriously the reality that faith in Jesus Christ is nurtured
not only within the life of the church but within the life of the family. Knowing full well that the path of
faith is a difficult one, the church seeks to partner with the parent(s) in nurturing the child in the life of faith.

In the above quote, it states that under ordinary circumstances the parent(s) are already in some way
nurturing their own faith within the life of the church as active members. Of course, the Spirit of God’s
activity within a person’s life is not always ordinary. At times, baptism represents an opportunity to awaken
a family to an otherwise dormant faith. It is the responsibility of the Teaching Elder (minister) and the
Session to ensure that whoever is seeking baptism on behalf of their child, they themselves are provided the
opportunity to do their own soul-searching and enabled to say “yes” to the baptismal vows with sincerity
and integrity. This comes all through the proper understanding that "Baptism points us back to the grace of
19

God expressed in Jesus Christ, who died for us and who was raised for us. Baptism points us forward to the
same Christ who will fulfill God’s purpose in God’s promised future” (Book of Order, W-2.3002).

THE MODE OF BAPTISM

One issue that has concerned and divided Christians is the manner in which we should be baptized.
Protestants have divided into different denominations over this issue. Lutheran and most Reformed
churches practice baptism by sprinkling or pouring water on the person baptized. Baptist and many similar
churches believe the only valid way to baptize is by immersing the person in water. While most churches
that practice sprinkling or pouring believe that is the proper mode to use, being based on Scripture, they do
recognize immersion as a valid mode, although not the proper one to use. Most immersionist churches,
however, believe that the mode is essential, and that someone who has undergone sprinkling or pouring has
not been baptized at all.

Arguments favoring these different modes of baptism can be divided into several categories: the meaning of
the word baptize itself, the descriptions of individual baptisms in the New Testament, similar Old Testament
and intertestament practices among the Jews, the practice of the early Christian churches as shown in
literature and archaeology, and the significance of baptism as it relates to mode.

 Position of the Westminster Standards

Perhaps the best creedal statement of Reformed theology is the Westminster Confession of Faith. It briefly
states the classic Presbyterian position regarding the mode of baptism:

“Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring or
sprinkling water upon the person” (WCF 28:3). The Westminster divines cited the following Scriptures in
support: Mark 7:4; Acts 1:5; cf. 2:3-4, 17, 41; 10:45-47; 11:15-16; 16:33; 1 Cor 10:2; Heb 9:10, 19-22.

The Confession says that baptism is “rightly administered” by pouring or sprinkling, and that immersion
(“dipping”) is “not necessary.” “Rightly administered” meant that pouring or sprinkling had Scriptural
support. The term “not necessary” meant to the Westminster divines that immersion should not be practiced
in Reformed churches. They prohibited immersion because, by the exclusive principle, all worship forms
that are not explicitly required by Scripture or necessarily derived from Scripture were to be avoided. It was
only recently that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has allowed immersion to be used at the discretion of
local sessions. The PCUSA’s current policy: “The water used for Baptism should be common to the
location, and shall be applied to the person by pouring, sprinkling, or immersion. By whatever mode, the
water should be applied visibly and generously” (Book of Order. W-3.3605). Traditionally, only two modes
were permitted; for example, in 1950 this was the stated policy for infants: “He is to baptize the child with
20

water, by pouring or sprinkling it on the head of the child, without adding any other ceremony,” and for
adults: “The minister shall baptize the candidate by pouring or sprinkling water upon his head” (Directory
for Worship 8:2-3).

Reformed churches believed immersion was “not necessary” for valid baptism to take place. However, they
did recognize baptisms by immersion as valid, although not “rightly” administered. It was not necessary for
those who had been baptized by immersion to be re-baptized when joining a Reformed church. A sacrament
may be valid although improperly administered; for example, baptizing by immersing the head only is an
improper mode, but it does not negate the sacrament.

 Summary of Other Arguments

The argument regarding the mode of baptism is lengthy and complex. This article will concentrate on the
argument regarding the significance of baptism. Here is a brief summary of other arguments supporting the
traditional Reformed position (http://www.wrs.edu/courses/theology_4.htm). Immersionists claim that the
Greek word to baptize (bapti/zwbaptizo) means to immerse. This would be true for all the related verbs and
nouns from the same Greek root. Hence, Jesus’ command in Matt 28:19 is a command to “immerse all
nations.” Using any other mode would be disobedience to this command.

Careful examination of this word group, however, reveals that immerse would be a poor translation; the
traditional transliteration baptize is much better, as the meaning is not modal at all. Rather, the word means
that the object has been changed in some way by the outward element applied. Often it means to be made
wet by water or some other liquid; this can be done by dipping, by pouring, or by sprinkling. As bapto
(ba/ptw) in Luke 16:24 (dipping tip of finger in water) and in Dan 4:33 and 5:21 LXX (condensation of
dew); and baptizo in Mark 7:4 (ceremonial sprinkling of household items, in Luke 11:38 (ceremonial
pouring of water over hands before eating), and in Heb 9:10 (sprinkling of blood in the OT law; v. 13).

The idea of bringing a change in the object baptized is well illustrated by the use of the term for dying—to
“baptize” with blood can mean to “dye” with blood, again, using a variety of modes. Thus, when Jesus will
defeat his enemies, his garments will be “baptized with blood,” dyed red, by having blood spattered upon
them. In Rev 19:13, bapto is used for “dye,” in this case not by immersion, but by spattering (Isa 63:3). The
translation “dipped in blood” in Rev 19:13 in many English translations is incorrect; it should be “dyed with
blood.” There are many other examples where these terms are used with modes other than dipping or
immersing (Wuest 71). These examples contradict Wuest’s own conclusion that “baptizo means, ‘to dip, to
immerse.’ It never means ‘to sprinkle’” (75).

Immersionists often claim that the language used to describe John’s baptism of Jesus and Philip’s baptism of
21

the Ethiopian eunuch indicates immersion was used. John baptized “in (en) the Jordan.” After he was
baptized Jesus “immediately went up (anabaino) out of (ek) the water,” or “from (apo) the water.” Philip
and the eunuch “went down (katabaino) into (eis) the water” and “came up (anabaino) out of (ek) the
water.”

Actually, these narratives employ Greek prepositions that have a wide variety of usage. En can mean “in,
with, by means of”; ek can mean “out of, away from, apart from”; and eis can mean “into, unto, to, toward.”
Thus these phrases can well be translated “down to the water” and “up from the water.” The earliest pictures
and fonts available after Christ show baptisms taking place, usually with the person standing in shallow
water with water being poured over his head. This would fit these NT examples, with John baptizing “in the
Jordan,” that is, standing in the water while people came down to him to be baptized. The actual mode of
baptism is not mentioned in the text. It says merely that people “went down” to the water to be baptized,
and then “went up” the bank to dry ground again. This interpretation is confirmed in Acts 8—few would
suggest that Philip immersed himself along with the eunuch, yet it says that both Philip and the eunuch
“went down” to the water and then “came up” from the water. It is talking about their going to the place
where the baptism took place, not to the baptism itself.

Many examples of baptisms in the NT support the idea that water baptism was a simple rite, performed
easily and quickly in a variety of settings, sometimes when little water was available. Sometimes sprinkling
or pouring are mentioned in the immediate context. These examples would include John’s baptizing at the
Jordan and at Aenon near Salim, the baptism of 3,000 at Pentecost, Philip’s baptizing the eunuch in the
desert, the baptism of Saul, the baptism of Cornelius and his family, and the baptism of the Philippian jailer
and his family.13 In these cases immersion would be difficult at least, and does not seem to be in view in
the text. On the other hand, baptism by sprinkling or pouring fits in naturally with the text and with the
historical setting.

 Early Christian baptism

The practice of the church after the apostolic age reveals the way that the early Christians understood the
practice of baptism, handed down from the apostles and those who followed them. The writings of the
church fathers are one source of information, and archeological research into early pictures, churches, and
baptisteries is another source that helps us interpret the words of the fathers (Battle 8.14-19). While the early
church fathers’ language often is ambiguous, it seems that they concur in the early practice as normally
being done while standing in water. Statements about actual mode are not at all definite until the third
century, where they appear mixed (“water-bath, plunged, washed, sprinkled”) (Burrows 373).
22

One of the clearest statements is found in the Didache, a Christian document dated ca. A.D. 150:

“But concerning baptism, thus you shall baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if you have
not living water, then baptize in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. But if you
have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit” (ANF7:379b).

This statement of the Didache can be taken in two ways: (1) immerse if possible, otherwise pour; or (2)
baptize, if possible, with the person standing in running water or in a receptacle; otherwise, the person
baptized may stand on the floor; in either case, pouring would be used.

Without the benefit of archeology to help interpret the early Christian literature, many in the past have
assumed definition (1) to be the case. For example, John Calvin assumed immersion to be the ancient
practice, he wrote:

But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once,
whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water—these details are of no importance, but
ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word “baptize”
means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church
(4:15:19).

However, archeological research since Calvin’s time has revealed that the early churches practiced baptism
normally by having the person stand in water, with water being poured over the head (Warfield76). This
would agree with interpretation (2) of the Didache. In confirmation of this practice, the two earliest extant
Christian church structures, dating from the third century, have baptisteries that are much too shallow to
allow immersion (Finegan 499).

 Mode and the Significance of Baptism

While the various linguistic and historical arguments regarding the mode of baptism are important, the
argument would not be complete without an examination of the meaning of baptism and the way that
meaning relates to its mode. There are two NT passages that relate baptism to the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ, and thereby to the death of our old life and the birth of our new life.

Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised
from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Rom 6:3-4).
23

And,

. . . having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of
God, who raised him from the dead. (Col 2:12).

Many proponents of each position believe that these passages are speaking of spiritual baptism, not water
baptism. However, good arguments can be made that Paul is speaking of water baptism in the two passages.
Yet, even if only spiritual baptism is in view, it seems reasonable that water baptism should reflect in its
mode this same concept. Immersionists claim that immersion in water most closely represents the death-
burial-resurrection figure.

While baptism does signify our death and resurrection in Christ, its meaning is much broader. The
Westminster Larger Catechism lists seven different truths symbolized in baptism: “ingrafting into Christ,
forgiveness of sins by his blood, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, adoption as God’s children, resurrection to
everlasting life, admission to the visible church, and engagement to be the Lord’s” (WLC 9.54). The
Westminster standards link baptism to the covenant of grace. All these significances are positive or
beneficial. It is possible to summarize these significances in the following way:

Union with Christ.—Paul mentions this aspect of baptism often, especially in connection with Jesus’ death,
burial, and resurrection. God now sees us as in Christ, sharing his righteousness and standing. Some have
made this particular significance the primary meaning of baptism.

Forgiveness of sins.—Very often baptism is linked to purification, cleansing, forgiveness, and acceptance
with God. In a similar manner the gospels associate John’s baptizing with forgiveness and cleansing.

Regeneration and baptism by the Holy Spirit.—Water baptism symbolizes our spiritual baptism, our
regeneration by the Holy Spirit, just as physical circumcision symbolized spiritual regeneration.

Initiation into the visible church.—Christ commanded all his disciples to be baptized, and it was the
standard way for believers to publicly confess Christ and join the visible church, the body of believers. Since
baptism and circumcision signify the same thing, baptism has replaced circumcision as the means to enter
the visible church (WLC 9.54-59).

Baptism should symbolize all of these elements, not just that of death and resurrection with Christ. The
sprinkling of water and blood and the pouring out of the Spirit are scriptural terms and figures for these
spiritual blessings. In the Scriptures the modes of sprinkling and pouring are most often associated with
these concepts. Baptism by sprinkling or pouring best symbolizes the totality of these blessings.
24

Since baptism primarily represents the new covenant and its sanctions, its mode may be determined by
examining scriptural passages related to the establishment and operation of the new covenant. This
examination reveals that sprinkling and pouring are the primary modes associated with this covenant;
immersion is not referred to in any of these passages.

In Hebrews 10:19-22, the author of Hebrews describes our status under the new covenant; now we can draw
near to God, “having our heart sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies
washed with pure water.” The two expressions “bodies washed” and “hearts sprinkled” are parallel. The
sprinkling of our hearts by the blood of Christ is metaphoric of spiritual cleansing; the washing of our bodies
probably refers to water baptism as picturing the cleansing of our hearts. The mode of sprinkling would be
most appropriate in this case. The previous context in Hebrews clearly links this mode to the new covenant.
Hebrews 8 quotes at length the prophecy of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. Hebrews 9:10-15 states that
the “sprinkling” of blood to purify people outwardly has been replaced in the “new order” by the
“cleansing” produced by the blood of Christ on our consciences. The parallel term for “sprinkling” in
Hebrews 9 is “baptisms.” Since sprinkling often was of blood, this mode therefore symbolizes death and
burial, as well as new life under the resurrection.

Baptism by sprinkling or pouring has strong scriptural support from the usage of the terms employed and
from the historical situation. In addition, the significance of baptism provides confirmation of these modes.
Baptism is the initiatory rite that brings one into the covenant community of God (the visible church) and
into the terms of the new covenant. As such it signifies the curses and the blessings of the new covenant; it
obligates the person to believe in Christ so that he will bear the covenant curses in his place; it also warns
the person of the serious nature of that obligation. The new covenant is described in several Scriptures; in
those contexts immersion is never mentioned; rather, whenever a mode is mentioned in the context, it is
pouring or sprinkling. The teaching of the Westminster Standards on the mode of baptism is confirmed both
by traditional biblical exegesis and by newer research into the background of the biblical covenants.

THE ESSENCE OF BAPTISM

The first essence of baptism is drawn from the example and command of Jesus. Jesus being baptized and He
commanding it attest to the importance and the need for baptism. Jesus never sinned (1Peter 2:22), but He
went through baptism to give us an example. When John tried to prevent Him, “permit it to be so now,”
Jesus answered, “for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:13-15). Jesus went through
baptism to call us to do the same (Matt. 21:25). If the Sinless one went through baptism, then we who are
sinners need it the most. The great commission (Matthew 28:18-20) records Jesus commanding the disciples
25

to baptize. Christ demands baptism of those who believe in Him as a testimony that they had entered into a
personal relationship with Him (Beasley-Murray 62).

The next essence comes from the call of the Apostles. Just like Christ, the apostles repeatedly preached the
necessity of baptism for those who accepted Christ (Acts 2:38; 10:48; 22:16). The response was enormous,
as many were baptized and the church increased in number (Acts 2:41, 47; 8:12). As a Requirement for
Salvation: Repeatedly, baptism is linked with salvation in the New Testament. The New Testament calls for
those who believe to be baptized in order to be saved (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12; 16:30-34; 1 Peter 3:20, 21)
(Beasley-Murray 64). This speaks to the essentiality of baptism.

The first examples of baptism in the New Testament occurred in the opening chapters of the Gospels. John
the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus, makes way for the Lord’s arrival, who commands all to repent, “for the
kingdom of heaven has come near!” (Matt 3:2). And immediately following Jesus’ command, Matthew
writes, that all of Jerusalem, Judea, and the entire region around the Jordan “were baptized by him [John] in
the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (3:5– 6). However, this type of ritual washing did, and does, not
actually cleanse anyone intrinsically from sin, for it is Christ of whom John says is “the Lamb of God, who
takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).

While the Old Testament form of baptism had grace connected to it, it was missing the work of the Spirit,
which further reveals the real meaning of what baptism signifies. John proclaimed to those he was baptizing,
“I baptize you with water for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is more powerful than I. I am
not worthy to remove his sandals. He himself will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt 3:11).
Again, John was making the path straight for the Lord, preparing the Jews for the long-awaited Messiah.
Those who came with a repentant heart received a baptism from the pre-runner of Christ, in preparation for
the true baptism to come (Schreiner 138).

There are five verses in the Gospels (not including Matt 21:25; Mark 11:30; Luke 20:4, for these are parallel
accounts where Christ poses a question to the Pharisees about John’s baptizing when his authority is
challenged and is not pertinent to this essay) where Christ speaks of or gives a command regarding baptism
(Matt 28:19; Mark 10:38–39; 16:16; Luke 12:50). In the examples found in Mark 10:38–39 and Luke
12:50, Christ speaks to the disciples about baptism, not as a ritual cleansing but as a form of death. In Mark
10:35–40, John and James, the sons of Zebedee, make a request to the Lord to be granted seats of
prominence, one to left hand and one to the right hand of Christ in glory. Jesus responds, saying to them,
“Are you able to drink the cup I drink or to be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” (Mark 10:38).
Christ’s reference to drinking from the cup is emblematic of the depiction of God in the Old Testament
pouring out his wrath in judgment or making the wicked drink from his cup of wrath in judgment (Isa 51:17;
26

22; Jer. 25:15– 16; Ezek. 23:31–34; Mal 14:36) (Sproul 1730). What is significant in these passages from
Mark and Luke is that Christ associates baptism with the drinking from the cup— baptism and death (in this
case martyrdom) are synonymous.

The Judaizers, in understanding the importance of this command in Genesis 17 and recognizing
circumcision as the identifying mark of the covenant relationship with Yahweh, placed the validity of one’s
salvation on it, teaching that one had to be circumcised according to the custom of Moses in order to be
saved (Acts 15:1). Paul’s teaching in Colossians refutes this view. In the new covenant, the cross ended the
necessity of Jewish rite because it “replaced circumcision as the way of entrance into the people of God.”
Jew and Gentile believers are buried with Christ in his death and raised with him through faith, no longer
requiring a physical circumcision of the flesh, for they are members of the people of God through faith “by
the circumcision of Christ” (Col 2:11).

The New Testament calls for faith and repentance as the requirements for baptism. Faith: It seems clear that
the first requirement for baptism in the Bible is faith in Jesus as the Savior of the world (John 3:16). Christ
said, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). Likewise, the apostles baptized only
those who believed the gospel that was preached to them (Acts 8:12, 36, 37; 18:8). Faith in Jesus is
developed as people hear the “Word of God” being preached (Rom. 10:17) and this Christ commissioned the
apostles to do (Matt. 28:19, 20).

Another essence of baptism is for repentance. The preaching of the “Word of God” does not only produces
faith but repentance and conversion as well. “Repent,” said Peter, “and let every one of you be baptized”
(Acts 2:38). Those who seek baptism must have come to see their lost condition, confessed their sins, and be
ready to turn away completely from them in order to receive Christ’s atonement. Without being converted,
one cannot enter into a personal relationship with Christ. This makes repentance a prerequisite for baptism.
Commenting on the necessity of repentance for baptism, Joel James wrote: John preached repentance and
baptized those who confessed their sins and sought God's forgiveness. In fact, John rejected the Pharisees
and Sadducees who came to him to be baptized (vv. 7-8) because he did not believe their repentance was
genuine— evidenced by their lack of fruit. These religious leaders had the right family background—"We
have Abraham for our father" (v. 10)—but John was unimpressed.

In Matthew 28:19 Christ says "all nations," that is, "all living human beings" should be baptized. There
remains indications in the New Testament, especially in Acts (cf. Matt. 8:35-37), that the Spirit could be
given independently of baptism in water. The twelve were given the Spirit directly (on Easter evening
according to John 20:22; and at Pentecost according to Acts 2) and not through baptism in water. Acts
10:44 shows the Spirit coming upon Cornelius and company before they were baptized in water. Therefore,
27

we do not baptize adults until we have seen some indication of the Spirit at work in their lives; that is why a
thorough teaching (catechization) must precede baptism in the case of the young and older adults.

The indication that the Spirit is at work in a person is in their confession of faith. At the end of catechetical
instruction where the basics of the Christian faith are taught, a person who has indeed come to faith in Christ
can from that new faith now fortified by the Word confess Jesus Christ as Lord and their Savior. (I
Corinthians 12:3) The confession of faith is evidence that the Spirit was and is at work. A stray thought -
Hunger grows for spiritual things including a hunger for the Lord’s Supper. Where there is no hunger for the
sacrament of the Lord’s Supper there is a strong indication that that person is no longer a Christian.

Even though the Spirit could be given outside baptism, it does appear that all Christians in the first century
church received a baptism in water. Even those who had already received the Spirit were baptized (cf. Acts
10:47-48). Likewise, Paul was baptized after his Damascus road conversion. The early Christians
remembered John 3:5 says, Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (English Standard Version). and Matthew 28:19 says,  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 (English Standard Version); so all
were baptized. The Greek of Matthew 28:19 cannot be made to say, teach first and then baptize.
28

WORKS CITED AND BOOKS FOR FURTHER STUDIES

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). “The Sacrament of Baptism.”Book of Order and the Book of
Confessions. Print.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Matthew 28:18–20). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Print.

Warfield,B. B. “The Archaeology of the Mode of Baptism”; Clement F. Rogers, Baptism and Christian
Archaeology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903. Print.

Finegan, Jack. Light from the Ancient Past: The Archeological Background of Judaism and
Christianity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959. Print.

Wuest, Kenneth. Studies in the Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1945.

James III, Frank A. “Introduction: The Covenantal Convictions of a Compassionate Calvinist,” in The
Presbyterian Doctrine of the Children in the Covenant. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed,
2003. Print.

Murray, John. Christian Baptism. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980. Print.

Orner, Robert H. Why Baptizing Your Child Matters. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014. Print.

Schenck, Lewis Bevens. The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant. Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003. Print.

Booth, Randy. “Covenant Transition” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism. GreggStrawbridge
(Ed).Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003. Print.

McKim, Donald K. How Karl Barth Changed My Mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Print.

Torrance, Thomas F. The Centrality of Christ: Devotions and Addresses at the General Assemblyof the
Church of Scotland. Edinburgh: St Andrew Press, 1976. Print.

Torrance,Thomas F. Space, Time and Resurrection.Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1976. Print.

McCain, Danny. We Believe Vol.2Bukuru: Africa Christian Textbooks (Acts), 2006. Print.

Foakes-Jackson, F. J. The History of the Christian Church to AD 46I.Michigan: Beasy Press, 1914. Print.
29

Jeremias, Joachim. Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries. London: SCM, 1960. Print.

Reichelderfer, “Understanding Infant Baptism in The Covenant Community of God’s People,”

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

Berkouwer, G.C. The Sacraments. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W. Children of Promise: The Case for Baptizing Infants. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1979.

________. Sacramental Teaching and Practice in the Reformation Churches. Eugene, OR: Wipf and
Stock, 1999.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians.New International
Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984.

Calvin, John. Commentary on Genesis.Translated by John King. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society,
1847.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles.Translated by John Owen. Edinburgh: Calvin
Translation Society, 1855.

Ross, Mark E. “Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals” in, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism.
Greg Strawbridge (Ed.). Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003.

Wood, D. R. W. and I. Howard, Marshall. New Bible Dictionary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1996. Print.

Packer, J. I. Concise Theology: a Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993.
Print.

Sproul, R. C. What Is Baptism?Vol. 11.First edition. The Crucial Questions Series. Orlando, FL:
Reformation Trust, 2011. Print.

Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke, The
International Critical Commentary, 5th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1981. Print.

Witsius, Herman. Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, 2 Vols. Volume 1. Grand Rapids,
MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012. Print.
30

Jeremias, Joachim. The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Al and Eugene, OR:
Wipf and Stock, 2004. Print.

Tertullian.ConcerningBaptism.trans. Alexander Souter. New York: MacMillan, 1919. Print.

Leithart, Peter J. “Infant Baptism in History: An Unfinished Tragicomedy” in, The Case for Covenantal
Infant Baptism. Greg Strawbridge (Ed.). Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003.

Hippolytus.The Apostolic Tradition.Ann Arbor, MI: Cushing-Malloy, 1962.

http://www.chronicon.net/chroniconfiles/Burton_Scott_Easton__The_Apostolic_Tradition_of_Hippolytus_
1934).pdf; Internet; 17 March 2022.

Jewett, Paul K. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace.Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. Print.

Schaff, David. History of the Christian Church, vol. 5.Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1907. Print.

Old, Hughes Oliphant.The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1992.

Augustine. The Enchiridion in the Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, vol. ix.Edinburgh: T and
T Clark, 1892. Print.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology.Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997. Print.

Berkhof, Louis.Systematic Theology.Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Print.

Murray, John. Christian Baptism.Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980. Print.

Owen, John. Of Infant Baptism.http://www.covenantofgrace.com/owen_infant_baptism.htm; Internet, 13

March2022.

Edwards, Jonathan.The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 1.Worchester, MA: Isaiah Thomas, 1808. Print.

Schenck, Lewis Bevens. The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant. Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003. Print.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. “Baptism,” in Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid,Dictionary

of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1993. Print.

Sproul, R. C. and Mathison, Keith A.The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version. Orlando, Fla.;
Phillipsburg, N.J.: Ligonier Ministries: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 2008. Print.
31

Schreiner, T. R. “Circumcision,” in Hawthorne, Martin, and Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters.

Pratt, Jr. Richard L. “Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant” in Reformed Perspectives Magazine, vol. 7,
Number 4, January 2022.

Orner, T. Why Baptizing Your Child Matters. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014. Print.

Lusk, Rich.“Baptismal Efficacy and the Reformed Tradition: Past, Present, and Future,”
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/rich-lusk/baptismal-efficacy-the-reformed-tradition 5 April 2014.

Leithart, Peter J. The Baptized Body.Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2007.

Wilson, Douglas. “Sacramental Efficacy in the Westminster Standards” in, The Auburn Avenue Theology:
Pros and Cons. E. Calvin Beisner (Ed.). Lauderdale, FL: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology.Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1981. Print.

Kuiper, R.B. The Glorious Body of Christ.Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2001. Print.

Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.Print.

Kline, Meredith. By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcisionand

Baptism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968. Print.

Clark, R. Scott.“A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism,”

http://clark.wscal.edu/baptism.php; Internet; 5 April 2022.

Calvin, John.Institutes of the Christian Religion.Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1960. Print.

Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Print.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (John 3:5). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society. Print.
32
33