The Children Also: Baptism, Covenant, and the Household of Faith

This article has been adapted from episode 122 of MARS' faculty podcast, featuring Dr. Cornelis Venema and Dr. Alan Strange.

Introduction: Who Should Be Baptized?

The sacrament of baptism has, for centuries, served as a focal point of theological reflection. The question "Who should be baptized?" is not simply a matter of liturgical procedure or pastoral practice, but one that touches on the very heart of covenant theology and ecclesiology.

In a previous faculty podcast discussion, Dr. Cornelis Venema and Dr. Alan Strange addressed baptism in its broader sense, as a sign and seal of God's covenant promises and as an act that marks incorporation into the body of Christ, the visible Church. In this adapted article from part 2 of that discussion, we narrow our attention to the question of the proper subjects of baptism. To whom is baptism rightly administered?

Specifically, we seek to answer whether the children of believing parents should receive baptism. It is a question of historic and ongoing importance. Many Christian traditions answer in the affirmative, including Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches. Others, especially within the Baptist and Pentecostal traditions, argue that baptism should be reserved for those who can make a personal profession of faith.

It is our contention that the children of believers are, by God’s design, rightful recipients of the sign and seal of the covenant, just as they were under the Old Covenant, and now under the New.

The Covenant Continuity: One Gospel, One People, One Promise

The heart of the argument rests on the principle of covenant continuity. Scripture presents the history of redemption as unfolding under a single, overarching covenant of grace. This covenant was first announced in Genesis 3:15, when God promised that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent. It was further developed in God's dealings with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David, and culminated in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

In Genesis 17, God gave Abraham the covenant sign of circumcision, commanding that every male in his household be circumcised on the eighth day. This included not only Abraham's biological offspring but also those born in his house or bought with money. The sign was not administered on the basis of personal faith, but on the basis of covenantal inclusion. The children were regarded as part of God's covenant people and thus received the sign that sealed the promises made to them.

Now, if we believe that the covenant of grace continues into the New Testament without rupture, that it is the same covenant, now revealed in greater clarity and fulfillment in Christ, then it follows that the basic principles of covenantal inclusion also continue. If God once included the children of believers in His covenant and marked them accordingly, we must ask: Has He changed that pattern? Has He withdrawn His promise from the children?

B.B. Warfield, in a characteristically incisive essay, stated the matter thus (in paraphrase): "In the Old Testament, God put them in. Nowhere in the New Testament does He put them out." The gospel has not grown narrower in the New Testament, but broader. The promises are now not only for the Jews but also for the Gentiles.

If the covenant of grace has expanded in the New Testament, it would be a curious thing indeed for God to now exclude those whom He previously included: the children.

The Apostolic Witness at Pentecost

The apostolic preaching recorded in the book of Acts offers vital insight into how the early church understood the scope of God's promises. In Acts 2, Peter stands before a gathered crowd of Jewish men and women from every corner of the diaspora. They have witnessed the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and are cut to the heart by Peter's sermon declaring Jesus as both Lord and Christ.

When they cry out, "What shall we do?", Peter replies, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:38-39).

To the Jewish mind, the inclusion of children in the covenant community was a settled matter. God's promises had always been "to you and your seed." Had Peter intended to signal a radical departure from this pattern, he would have needed to say so explicitly. But instead, he reaffirms it.

What is new in Peter's declaration is not the inclusion of children, but the inclusion of Gentiles. The phrase "all who are far off" is a reference to the nations, those not previously counted among God's covenant people. The covenant, in Christ, is expanding. What was once particular to ethnic Israel is now global.

This, we would argue, makes the exclusion of children from the covenant sign not only biblically untenable but theologically incoherent. It would imply that the new covenant community, formed through Christ, is more restrictive than the old. We dare say that this is not progress, but regression.

Household Baptisms: The Pattern of Acts

The book of Acts records several instances of what have been called "household baptisms." The households of Lydia (Acts 16:15), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:33), Crispus (Acts 18:8), and Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16) were all baptized following the conversion of a family head.

Some argue that these texts do not explicitly mention infants or children and therefore cannot be used to support infant baptism. But such a reading fails to consider the socio-cultural realities of the time. In the ancient Greco-Roman world, households were expansive. They included not only nuclear family members but also servants, dependents, and often multiple generations. The notion of a "household" baptism likely involved the baptism of all who were under the head's authority, much as circumcision had in Abraham's household.

Moreover, it is striking that there is no record of protest or explanation accompanying these baptisms. No caution is issued about limiting baptism only to those capable of making a profession of faith. No indication is given that the children, if present, were to be excluded. 

Baptism and Circumcision: Colossians 2 and the Sign of the Covenant

In Colossians 2:11-12, Paul makes a theological connection between circumcision and baptism: "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands... having been buried with him in baptism."

Paul is writing to a Gentile church that is being pressured by Judaizers to adopt Jewish ceremonial practices, including circumcision. His response: You do not need circumcision, because you have received something better. You have been circumcised in Christ, not with a physical knife, but through union with Him in baptism.

Nowhere in this passage does Paul suggest that the subjects of the sign have changed. He is detailing a change in the nature of the sign, not its recipients. In fact, in a context where Paul is explicitly addressing what has changed in moving from the Old Covenant to the New, his failure to mention a change in the subject of the sign speaks volumes. If children are no longer to receive the sign of the covenant, this would have been the time and place to say so.

The logic of covenant continuity compels us to say that if circumcision was administered to the children of believers, and if baptism now stands in its place as the covenant sign, then baptism should also be administered to the children of believers.

The Voice in Baptism: God Speaks First

Much of the Baptist objection to paedobaptism is rooted in a misunderstanding of the nature of the sacrament. It is often viewed as a badge of personal faith, a public testimony of a believer’s decision to follow Christ.

But in the Reformed tradition, we understand baptism differently. It is not primarily our word to God, but God's word to us. It is not a declaration of our faith, but a declaration of His promise.

The question is not, "What does this person say about Christ?" but rather, "What does Christ say to this person?" Baptism is a sign and seal of God's covenant promise, a visible word accompanying the preached Word. It is God's gracious announcement: "You belong to Me. I have called you by name."

This understanding helps us see why children may rightly receive baptism. It is not that they have professed faith. It is that God has made promises to them, and baptism is the visible confirmation of those promises. They are members of the covenant community. They are set apart. They are to be nurtured in the faith and called to believe what they have already been marked to receive.

Validity, Irregularity, and the Once-for-All Nature of Baptism

Questions often arise regarding the validity of baptism, particularly when it has been administered under less-than-ideal circumstances. What if the minister was morally compromised? What if it took place in a Roman Catholic church? What if the baptism was not performed in a Reformed setting?

The historic position of the Reformed Church, following the early church's response to the Donatist controversy, is that the validity of baptism does not rest upon the moral purity of the minister. If the sacrament is administered with water, in the name of the Triune God, it is valid.

This is why the Reformers did not rebaptize those who came out of Roman Catholicism. As long as the Trinitarian formula was used and water was applied, the baptism was recognized. To do otherwise would be to deny the once-for-all nature of baptism and to undermine the efficacy of God's promise by making it dependent on human agents.

Conclusion: The God Who Remembers Children

We return, then, to our central question: Should the children of believing parents be baptized?

We answer with a resounding yes. Not because of sentimentality. Not because of tradition. But because the covenant-making God has always remembered the children. From Abraham to Peter, from circumcision to baptism, God has marked the children of His people with His promises.

Baptism is not merely an individualistic proclamation. It is a covenantal act. It speaks of belonging and of God's grace-filled initiative. And in this act, the children are also remembered.

The reach of God's grace is not to be narrowed, and the voice that speaks in baptism is not to be silenced. Believing parents, with confidence and joy, should be encouraged to bring their children to the waters, trusting the God who has said, "I will be your God, and the God of your children after you."