The Case for Paedobaptism in Reformed Theology

(A Thorough and Robust Defense of Infant Baptism in the Covenant of Grace)

Among Reformed believers, the doctrine of paedobaptism—the practice of baptizing the children of believers—stands as a covenantal sign of God's promises to His people. This view is rooted in the continuity of God’s covenants and finds strong support in both Scripture and church history.

In this article, we will steelman the paedobaptist position, presenting its strongest biblical, theological, and historical arguments. The goal is to provide a rigorous and charitable exposition of why Reformed Christians hold to this doctrine.

1. The Biblical Foundation of Paedobaptism

Paedobaptists argue that God has always included children in His covenant dealings, and this principle remains unchanged in the New Covenant. This argument rests on three key biblical pillars:

A. The Covenant with Abraham: The Inclusion of Children

Genesis 17:7 – “I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.”

This is one of the most foundational texts in support of paedobaptism. God’s covenant is not merely individualistic—it is generational. Under the Old Covenant, children of believers were included by divine decree and received the covenant sign of circumcision as infants.

Genesis 17:10-12 – “This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised.”

Circumcision did not guarantee salvation but marked a child as belonging to God’s covenant people. This practice continued for thousands of years until Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant.

B. Baptism as the New Covenant Sign

Paedobaptists argue that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of the covenant:

Colossians 2:11-12 – “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism.”

Paul explicitly connects circumcision and baptism, suggesting that baptism functions as the new covenantal sign. Just as infants were circumcised under the Abrahamic covenant, infants of believers should receive baptism under the New Covenant.

C. Household Baptisms in the New Testament

Paedobaptists point to several instances of household baptisms, which strongly suggest the inclusion of children:

Acts 16:14-15 – Lydia’s household was baptized.
Acts 16:30-33 – The Philippian jailer “was baptized at once, he and all his family.”
1 Corinthians 1:16 – Paul baptized “the household of Stephanas.”

In a Jewish covenantal mindset, a household included everyone in the family, including infants and young children. Given the continuity of the covenant from the Old Testament to the New, paedobaptists argue that these household baptisms likely included infants.

2. The Theological Argument for Paedobaptism

The core theological foundation of paedobaptism rests on covenant theology—the belief that God has always worked through covenantal promises rather than treating salvation in an isolated, individualistic manner.

A. The Continuity of the Covenant of Grace

Reformed theology teaches that there is one unified Covenant of Grace throughout Scripture:

In the Old Testament, this covenant was administered through circumcision.
In the New Testament, this covenant is administered through baptism.

Since the structure of the covenant remains the same, there must be clear biblical evidence that children are no longer included. However, Scripture never revokes the inclusion of children in God’s covenant.

B. The Visible vs. Invisible Church Distinction

Paedobaptists maintain a key distinction between:

The Visible Church – All who are baptized and part of the covenant community.
The Invisible Church – The elect who have true, saving faith.

Just as circumcision did not guarantee salvation but marked one as part of God's people, baptism does not guarantee salvation but marks one as a member of the covenant community.

C. The Reformed Doctrine of Federal Headship

Romans 5:12-21 – Adam represented the human race in his fall, while Christ represents the elect in salvation.
1 Corinthians 7:14 – “The unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

Paul calls the children of believers “holy” (set apart), which supports the idea that they are included in the covenant community.

3. The Historical Argument for Paedobaptism

Paedobaptism is deeply rooted in church history. It was practiced:

By the early church (evidenced in the writings of Origen, Cyprian, and Augustine).
Throughout medieval Christianity (including the teachings of Aquinas and the Western Church).
By the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, and the Reformed confessions).

A. Early Church Support

Origen (c. 185–254 AD) – “The church has received a tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to infants.”
Cyprian (c. 200–258 AD) – Affirmed infant baptism as universal practice.
Augustine (354–430 AD) – Argued that the church has always baptized infants, citing it as an apostolic tradition.

B. The Reformers and Paedobaptism

During the Reformation, all major Reformers upheld paedobaptism:

Martin Luther – Defended infant baptism against the Anabaptists.
John Calvin – Considered baptism the New Testament equivalent of circumcision, marking a child as part of the covenant.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) – Explicitly defends paedobaptism as a biblical practice.

4. Answering Common Objections

Objection 1: "Baptism Requires Personal Faith"

Response: Baptism signifies God’s promise, not man’s faith. Just as infants in the Old Testament were passively circumcised, they can be passively baptized as recipients of God’s covenant.

Objection 2: "There Are No Explicit Infant Baptisms in Scripture"

Response: While Scripture does not explicitly say "infants were baptized," it also never revokes the longstanding inclusion of children in the covenant. The burden of proof is on those who claim children are excluded.

Objection 3: "Baptism Should Only Be for the Regenerate"

Response: Baptism does not regenerate—it marks covenant membership. The New Testament church, like Israel, consists of both true believers and those who only outwardly belong.

Final Thoughts: The Beauty of the Covenant Sign

Paedobaptism is not just a tradition—it is a profound declaration of God’s faithfulness. It proclaims:

That salvation is by grace, not personal decision.
That God’s covenant promises extend to families.
That children of believers belong to the visible church.

Whether one holds to paedobaptism or not, we must recognize that it is deeply rooted in biblical theology, covenant continuity, and historical practice.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Wisdom Shared