The Subjects Of Baptism

By Fred A. Malone

Fred A. Malone, Ph.D., is pastor of First Baptist Church, Clinton, LA, and author of The Baptism of Disciples Alone. Some of the material in this article has been adapted from that book and is used by permission from Founders Press.

The baptism of disciples alone is one of the distinctive beliefs and practices of Reformed Baptists. We hold much in common with our Reformed paedobaptist friends as is evidenced by the immense theological unity expressed in the common language between the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and the Second London Confession of Faith of 1689 (2ndLCF). There is a noticeable difference, however, between these Confessions on the doctrine of baptism, both for the subjects and mode of baptism. In this article, we will simply accept Calvin’s position that immersion was practiced in the early church and concentrate instead on the subjects of New Covenant baptism.[1]

The issue of the sacraments (“ordinances” for some Baptists) is no small issue. One of the three marks of the true visible church in Reformation theology is the right administration of the sacraments, along with the preaching of the Word of God and the right administration of church discipline. It is no secret that the occasion of Luther and Calvin’s objections to Roman Catholic doctrine had to do with the improper multiplication, meaning, and administration of the sacraments. At the heart of the Reformation is the proper theology and administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Reformed (“Covenantal”) Baptists hold to the doctrine of credobaptism (credo, “I believe”) as part of their doctrine of the sacraments; that is, the baptism of disciples alone. This doctrine necessarily separates Reformed brethren ecclesiastically in the visible church. The implications of one’s view of the subjects of baptism necessarily affect the practice of evangelism, the membership of the visible church, the doctrine of worship, and the practice of church discipline.

An irenic spirit between Reformed brethren must prevail in our discussions about baptism. Let us all hold to a clear conscience before God and His Word, however, in our practice. To do less will undermine our consciences in other truths and ultimately do the cause of biblical reformation great harm. Soli Deo Gloria!

Confessional Position

At first glance the 2ndLCF may seem to have little to say concerning the doctrine of baptism other than the obvious brief chapters on the ordinances (2ndLCF 28–30). However, the theology of the subjects of baptism is built upon several issues in the 2ndLCF: (1) the hermeneutics of the Confession, (2) covenant theology, (3) the doctrine of worship, (4) the doctrine of the church, and (5) the ordinances. All of these issues contribute to a consistent confessional theology of the baptism of disciples alone.

1. The subjects of baptism and hermeneutics

The 2ndLCF 1.6 substitutes a hermeneutical statement in the WCF 1.6, and in doing so rejects the erroneous hermeneutical basis for infant baptism and affirms the more sound hermeneutical basis for credobaptism. The WCF 1.6 reads:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men…(italics added)

The above italicized words were replaced by our Baptist forefathers with “is either expressly set down, or is necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture.” This substitution marks a hermeneutical difference between credobaptists (professor’s baptism alone) and paedobaptists (the baptism of professors and their infants). Although everyone uses reason, logic, and deduction in the exegesis, exposition, and theological expression of the Scriptures, not all deductions and inferences are either “good” or “necessary.” Our Baptist forefathers wanted to make sure that the containment of Scripture (i.e., the analogy of faith) limits what may be called “good and necessary consequence.”

Paedobaptism is based largely on a misuse of “good and necessary consequence,” or inference, from the subjects of OT circumcision.[2] Credobaptism, however, bases its doctrine of the subjects of baptism on a positively instituted ordinance, necessarily contained in Holy Scripture. The little-known Appendix on Baptism to the 2nd LCF justifies the hermeneutical basis for credobaptism:

Therefore we cannot for our own parts be persuaded in our own minds, to build such a practice as this, upon an unwritten tradition: But do rather choose in all points of Faith and Worship, to have recourse to the Holy Scriptures, for the information of our judgment, and regulation of our practice … All instituted worship receives its sanction from the precept, and is to be thereby governed in all the necessary circumstances thereof (italics added).[3]

So, covenantal Baptists look to the actual instituted words of Scripture to formulate the doctrine of the subjects of baptism (i.e., disciples alone) rather than to a possibly erroneous inference from the subjects of circumcision.

Consistent hermeneutics requires that an instituted sacrament (ordinance) must conform to words of institution contained in Holy Scripture, including the identification of its subjects. The only baptism instituted in Scripture is the baptism of disciples alone. Inference alone cannot designate the “necessary” subjects of a sacrament.

2. The subjects of baptism and covenant theology

The basic difference between the paedobaptist and credobaptist positions is that credobaptists affirm that only the regenerate are members of the effectual, unbreakable New Covenant and they alone are entitled to the covenant sign of baptism. This is simply because the New Covenant describes itself as an effectual covenant, where every member has the law of God written on the heart, knows God personally, and possesses the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, only those who profess repentance and faith as evidence of their regeneration and New Covenant membership are to be admitted to baptism, the New Covenant sign. Automatically to include the seed of believers in the New Covenant, thus entitled to infant baptism, does exegetical violence to the texts which describe and institute the New Covenant as an effectual covenant for every member (Jer. 31:27, 34; 32:40; Ezek. 36:26–27; Heb. 8:8–12; 10:15–17).

A covenantal Baptist theology affirms that the only proper subjects of Christian baptism are defined biblically as disciples. The following summary of the covenantal Baptist position was believed and taught by early Southern Baptist theologians such as Basil Manly, Sr., William B. Johnson, James P. Boyce, P.H. Mell, R.B.C. Howell, John L. Dagg, as well as by the English Baptist, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, and seventeenth century Particular Baptists.

The following points are consistent with the 2ndLCF 7.1-3 (entitled Of God’s Covenant). Covenantal (i.e., Reformed) Baptists believe:

1. That before the foundation of the world, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit entered into a Counsel of Peace, or Covenant of Redemption, to save an elect people from their sins (Eph. 1:1–14; Tit. 1:9). That within the decrees of God, only two covenant heads were designated, Adam and Christ. That God the Father decreed to create the world, including Adam as the covenant head of humanity, that He decreed to permit the fall of Adam by his own free choice, and that He decreed to send His Son as the covenant head to rescue an elect people from their sins and death. That all men who ever were to be born had Adam designated as their head in his Covenant of Works (2ndLCF 19.6 and 20.1) and that all of God’s elect people had Christ designated as their head in the Covenant of Redemption. That every person at any time in history is either in Adam or in Christ (Rom. 5:12–19), but never in both or neither.
2. That the Covenant of Grace with God’s elect is His historical working out of that eternal Covenant of Redemption in Christ.
3. That Adam was created upright and placed in a relationship with God which would continue perpetually if he kept God’s commands, variously called the Covenant of Works or Covenant of Life (Eccl. 7:29; Hos. 6:7). As the covenant head of all humanity, his fall into sin brought sin, death, and condemnation upon the entire race (Rom. 5:12–19).
4. That God did reveal historically the promise of grace in Gen. 3:15, commonly called the Covenant of Grace, successively revealing its future fulfillment in Jesus Christ’s New Covenant through the historical “covenants of promise” (Eph. 2:12). Thus, salvation by grace through faith in the coming “seed of the woman” as covenant Head was revealed and offered from the fall of man throughout the OT “covenants of promise.”
5. That the New Covenant of Jesus Christ is the prophesied fulfillment of what has been called the historical Covenant of Grace, revealed in the “covenants of promise” since the fall, and is the fullest and final historical manifestation of that eternal Covenant of Redemption to save God’s elect (2 Tim. 1:8–10).
6. That the New Covenant is an effectual covenant of realized blessings, not like the Sinai Covenant which it abrogates (Gal. 3:19), with an effectual Mediator as its covenant Head, writing the law on every member’s heart as individuals (Jer. 31:27–34; 32:40), giving them the saving knowledge of God, and forgiving their sins (Heb. 8:8–12; 10:15–17).
7. That Jesus Christ is the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), the final physical seed of Abraham to Whom the promises were made (Gal. 3:16, 19), the effectual Mediator of the New Covenant (Rom. 5:12ff.), and the covenant Head, whose “of faith” seed become joint-heirs with Him, members of the New Covenant, children of Abraham, the true circumcision, the true Jews, “the Israel of God,” and the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham (Gal. 3:14; 6:15–16; Rom. 2:28–29; 4:16).[4]
8. That all who repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ, Jew or Gentile, shall be saved and, as evidence of their New Covenant membership and heart-circumcision, should be baptized as disciples who have professedly entered the New Covenant by repentance and faith alone.
9. That John baptized disciples alone who repented of sin (Matt. 3:6). That Jesus and His disciples “made and baptized more disciples than John” (Jn. 4:1). The disciples were first made, and then baptized. That every person baptized had to decide to be baptized for himself, not by another’s decision for him, as in circumcision.
10. That there is no stated abrogation of the only subjects of Jesus’ baptism, disciples alone, in the NT.
11. That the Great Commission commands us to “make disciples of all the nations [individuals from all nations, not the national entities], baptizing them [the “made” disciples] ... teaching them [the baptized disciples] to do all that I commanded you” (Matt. 28:19–20). Luke corroborates this understanding: “and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Lk. 24:47).
12. That this is exactly what happened at Pentecost. Only those who “received [Peter’s] words were baptized” (Acts 2:41), not the infant children of believers.
13. That, amidst the debates about whether infant baptized children of believers are included in the NT church visible, it is often overlooked that the common designation for the church visible in Acts is “the disciples” (Acts 1:15; 6:1ff.; 9:19, 26, 28; 11:29; 13:52; 14:20, 22, 28; 15:10; 18:23, 27; 19:9, 30; 20:1, 7, 30; 21:4, 16): “And it came about that for an entire year [Saul and Barnabas] met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). The church is called “the disciples” because it was made up of those who followed Christ as committed “learners.” These disciples were first called Christians at Antioch; and only disciples were called Christians in Antioch. There is no room in these designations for the children of believers to be called church members or Christians simply by organic relation. The church visible is an assembly of baptized disciples.
14. That baptism is a sign of the subject’s cleansing from sin, his union with Christ by his faith, and his commitment to a new life in Christ from thenceforth (Col. 2:11–12).
15. And, finally, as stated in the WCF and the 2ndLCF, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, including their subjects, are “sacraments instituted by Christ.” That they are included as elements of worship under the regulative principle of worship, positively instituted by God and “limited by His own revealed will” (WCF 20.1,5). The elements of Christian worship governed by the regulative principle are all “expressly set down in Scripture,” not “by good and necessary inference.” The only form of baptism which fits this principle is that which was “instituted” and “prescribed in the Holy Scripture;” that is, the baptism of disciples alone, not of infants by additional and possibly erroneous “good and necessary inference.” Baptism is for disciples alone (Jn. 4:1; Acts 2:38–41): Solus discipulus!

The above statement describes a more consistent covenant theology of baptism and its subjects than does traditional paedobaptist covenant theology. The New Covenant itself is an effectual covenant in every member. Therefore, only those who show some outward evidence of New Covenant membership in repentance and faith are to receive the outward covenant signs of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This is exactly the command and practice of the NT.

3. The subjects of baptism and the doctrine of worship

The doctrine of worship outlined in the WCF 21.1-8 and the 2ndLCF 22.1-8 is basically identical. These chapters are a classic presentation of the regulative principle of worship as compared to the Lutheran and Anglican normative principle of worship. The regulative principle requires that elements of worship be positively instituted, that is, only those things commanded are to be elements of worship. The normative principle, however, requires those elements commanded as well as permitting those things not prohibited. This opens the way for inferred elements of Christian worship. It is the credobaptist position that maintains a consistent regulative principle concerning the subjects of baptism, disciples alone, as compared to the paedobaptist position that permits infant baptism by a misuse of “good and necessary inference.” The sacraments (ordinances) and their subjects are to be positively instituted by precept according to the regulative principle of worship.

The WCF 21 provides the delineation of the regulative principle:

Chapter XXI-- Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath-day 

I. The light of nature sheweth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture… 

III. Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, is by God required of all men;… 

V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner.(italics mine)

The above paragraphs require that biblical worship must be “instituted by [God] himself…limited by his own revealed will… [not by] any other way not prescribed in holy Scripture.” In other words, the only instituted, revealed, and prescribed elements of New Covenant worship are (1) prayer with thanksgiving, (2) reading the Scriptures, (3) sound preaching, (4) hearing of the word, (5) singing of psalms, (6) the due administration and receiving of the sacraments actually “instituted by Christ” Himself, (7) oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and (8) special occasions of thanksgiving. This instituted simplicity (as compared to OT worship) is the character and nature of NT worship. Inference, silence, and invention are not permitted to create new elements of worship under the regulative principle. This includes the subjects of the sacraments in their stated institution and “worthy receiving” of them. By biblical definition, the only worthy receivers and instituted subjects of baptism are disciples alone (Jn. 4:1–2; Matt. 28:19–20; Acts 2:38–42).

The issue of “good and necessary inference” (Murray’s terminology) needs to be clarified in regard to the regulative principle. Everyone uses logical inference to some degree to establish principles of doctrine and behavior from Scripture. A pastor uses inference to apply doctrinal truth to the specific needs of his people. However, there is a difference between what may be a “plausible” inference and what may be classified as a “good and necessary” inference attaining the level of a scriptural command. There may be a plausible case for asking questions about the inference of Abrahamic infant circumcision upon the infants of New Covenant believers. There may even be an inferential connection between circumcision and baptism in some way (Col. 2:11–12). But this does not mean that every plausible inference is so clear that it may attain to the category of “good and necessary consequence.” This difference is especially important when the regulative principle of worship requires instituted sacraments, not inferred sacraments. For this reason, the 2ndLCF prefers “is either expressly set down, or is necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture” (1.6). To use inference to establish as “necessary” the non-commanded subjects of a sacrament goes far beyond the use of legitimate principles of application and turns the regulative principle into the normative principle of worship.

The subjects of baptism, an instituted New Covenant ordinance, must be instituted by the actual words of Scripture alone. John the Baptist and Jesus baptized disciples alone (Jn. 4:1–2). The Great Commission institutes the baptism of disciples alone (Matt. 28:18–20). Peter baptized only those disciples who “received his word” on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:28–42). Philip baptized “both men and women” disciples, with no mention of their children (Acts 8:12). And the consistent testimony of Acts is that the local church was designated “the disciples” (Acts 11:20).

Only a credobaptist position is consistent with the Reformed regulative principle of worship. The paedobaptist position, based on inference instead of stated institution, is a violation of the regulative principle.

4. The subjects of baptism and the doctrine of the church

The 2ndLCF 26, Of the Church, departs from the WCF significantly. This is because the credobaptist concept of the visible church is that of a gathered assembly of professing disciples who have been baptized upon confession of their faith and discipleship. The relevant paragraphs in the 2ndLCF 26 are:

1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
3. The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.
4. The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel. (italics added)

Obviously, the 2ndLCF teaches that the church is both invisible and visible. Its invisibility has reference to the church universal of the elect of all ages, while its visibility has reference to the church local of professing believers. Sometimes Baptists have stated that the goal is to have a church of the regenerate alone. I would assume that that is the goal of paedobaptists as well. However, it is more proper and precise to say that Baptists have built the local church upon credible professions of faith, knowing that it is impossible to infallibly judge hearts as regenerate before baptism or church membership. The issue is commanded practice, not infallible judgment. Credobaptism is the only commanded practice of baptism in the Bible.

Nevertheless, the doctrine of the church in the 2ndLCF is built upon the concept of professing disciples alone who have been baptized upon a credible profession of faith. This distinctive of Baptist ecclesiology is based upon the doctrine of the instituted subjects of baptism, disciples alone, not upon the paedobaptist doctrine of the local church as believers and their children as stated in the WCF 25.2:

II. The visible church, which is also catholick or universal under the gospel, (not confined to one nation, as before under the law,) consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (italics added)

While all admit that the male children of covenant members were to be circumcised under the Abrahamic Covenant, the New Covenant fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant commands that disciples alone, male and female, be baptized upon professed repentance and faith in Christ alone. This is further corroborated by the often overlooked fact that the visible church is overwhelmingly designated “the disciples” in the book of Acts (Acts 1:15; 6:1ff.; 9:19, 26, 28; 11:26, 29; 13:52; 14:20, 22, 28; 15:10; 18:23, 27; 19:9, 30; 20:1, 7, 30; 21:4, 16). The church visible is an assembly of baptized disciples alone.

5. The subjects of baptism and the ordinances

The specific chapters of the 2ndLCF that have to do with the ordinances in general and baptism in particular simply outline the credobaptist position:

Chapter 28 - OF BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER 

1. Baptism and the Lord's supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world. 

Chapter 29 - OF BAPTISM 

1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. 

2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. (italics added)

It is clear from the above italicized phrases that the 2ndLCF builds its case for the subjects of baptism consistently upon the regulative principle of worship (i.e., professing disciples alone). The ordinances must be of positive institution and ordained by Jesus Christ, not inferred from OT practice. Only those who profess faith in Jesus Christ are the proper subjects of the sign of baptism. This is a disciple’s baptism alone, a credobaptism. The 2ndLCF provides a more consistent covenantal doctrine of baptism and church membership based upon the sovereign and positive institution of church sacraments by Jesus Christ Himself.

Biblical Foundations

1. The subjects of baptism before Pentecost

There does not seem to be a definite line of demarcation between the subjects of John’s baptism and of Jesus’ baptism, that of disciples alone (Jn. 4:1–2), and the later subjects of Pentecostal baptism (Acts 2:38–41). This is why, in fact, Luke clearly stated that only “those who received [Peter’s] word were baptized” at Pentecost (Acts 2:41); i.e., disciples alone. This observation is bolstered by Mk. 1:1, which describes “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” as occurring with the coming of John the Baptist (1:2), not just after Pentecost. Therefore, it is right to assume that the baptismal practice of John and Jesus conforms to the Gospel and is the closest immediate background of Pentecostal baptism, the baptism of disciples alone.

In order to use the uncertain First Century A.D. practice of Jewish proselyte household baptism, including children, as the immediate background of Pentecostal baptism, one must ignore the infallibly certain practice of Jesus and John. The very existence of Jewish proselyte baptism in the First Century A.D. is a highly debated issue among scholars, Baptist and paedobaptist alike. To use this speculative practice as a justification for infant baptism is a violation of the literal-grammatical-historical method of hermeneutics. Further, those who try to use the oikos [household] formula of Abrahamic household circumcision, which includes male infants, as the immediate background of Pentecostal baptism must adequately explain why John and Jesus did not use that so-called oikos formula in their institution of a disciple’s baptism. If it is a covenantal necessity to apply the covenant sign to the whole household, then why did Jesus not do it (Jn. 4:1–2)? Was He being disobedient to the oikos formula?

The fact is that Jesus instituted the baptism of disciples alone for the Christian church and affirmed it in the Great Commission where He gives the command to make disciples of all the nations, baptizing and teaching “them.” The “them” who are baptized and taught refers to those who are first made disciples (Jn. 4:1–2; Matt. 28:18–20). Jesus also commanded the eleven to teach those baptized disciples to do all that He had commanded them. One of those things He commanded His disciples to do includes His instructions to baptize only repentant disciples (Jn. 4:1–2). Thus, to separate Jesus’ baptism of disciples alone from Great Commission baptism literally is to violate the Great Commission itself!

Every use of the word “disciple” in the New Testament refers to a self-aware, willful follower of a teacher. In the Great Commission, Christ defined the subjects of baptism and Christian teaching as committed disciples. It may be added that Jesus clearly defined the basis for building His church upon the example of Peter's apostolic confession of faith (Matt. 16:16–19, 24–26). This supports the contention that the intended subjects of baptism for His church were professing disciples alone. If we call baptism a sacrament “instituted by Christ” for the outward sign of admission into His confessional church, then why do paedobaptists not trust His stated instructions concerning the subjects of baptism? Are we not obligated to teach whatever He commanded and taught (Matt. 28:18–20), including the baptism of disciples alone? His instituted instructions for founding His New Covenant church must have priority over an erroneous and unnecessary inference regarding the application of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Some paedobaptists continue to claim that the Great Commission constituted the initial institution of Christian baptism in a missionary situation. They say it would not have been unusual to see a missionary-minded Christ giving instructions for disciple baptism alone, naturally assuming the baptism of their infants to follow. However, since the Great Commission commands the disciples to teach what Jesus commanded them, including the baptism of disciples alone, then we would need to see a positive command of Jesus or His Apostles in the Great Commission, or thereafter, to clarify to parents that it is now permissible to baptize their infants, whereas it was not permissible before.

The practice and command of Jesus’ baptism, along with John’s, names professing believers or disciples alone as the only authorized subjects of baptism and the only inspired background to Pentecostal baptism. It is a credobaptism. We must not contradict either Christ’s teaching or example on the basis of an unnecessary inference to baptize infants.[5] The subjects of Pentecostal baptism are the same as the subjects of John’s and Jesus’ baptisms, the baptism of disciples alone (Acts 2:41).

2. The subjects of baptism after Pentecost

The teaching and example of Jesus needs to be applied to the baptisms in Acts. In the Great Commission, we are called to teach baptized disciples to do whatever Jesus commanded His disciples. This includes His instructions concerning the baptism of disciples alone.

Further, as stated earlier, it is often overlooked that a common designation for the church visible in Acts is “the disciples” (Acts 1:15; 6:1ff.; 9:19, 26, 28; 11:29; 13:52; 14:20, 22, 28; 15:10; 18:23, 27; 19:9, 30; 20:1, 7, 30; 21:4, 16). “And it came about that for an entire year [Saul and Barnabas] met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). The church is called “the disciples” because it was made up of those who followed Christ as baptized disciples. These disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. And only disciples were called Christians in Antioch. There is no room in these designations for the children of believers to be called visible church members, or Christians, simply by organic relation. The church visible is an assembly of baptized disciples, not disciples and their children.

Some have appealed to the household baptisms in Acts as evidence that infants were baptized in Acts by virtue of their believing parents (Acts 10:44–48; 16:15; 16:29–34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 16:15). However, many paedobaptists regard these examples of household baptisms as inconclusive regarding infant baptism. The Jerusalem Apostles’ own evaluation of the baptism of Cornelius’ household by Peter is that God saved all repentant believers in his Gentile household in exactly the same way as He did at Pentecost (Acts 2: 38–41):

And the Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. And these six brethren also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, “Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.” And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, “John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” And when they (the Jerusalem Apostles) heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:13–18; italics added)

The evaluation of the Apostles was that all those baptized in Cornelius’ household were granted repentance before baptism in the same way as at Pentecost: “and those who received his words were baptized” (Acts 2:41). We must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture on these household baptisms. The Jerusalem Apostles clarified what household baptism meant.

Others have appealed to 1 Cor. 7:14 as evidence that the children of believers were baptized upon their “holy” place in the covenant household:

But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, let him not send her away. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace (1 Cor. 7:12–14; italics added)

The paedobaptist appeal to the “holy” state of the children in a mixed marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian as the justification of infant baptism is unjustified. Paul does not appeal to the Christian’s covenant household position as the reason why the children are “holy” rather than “unclean,” but to the sanctification of the non-Christian through his or her Christian spouse. The whole issue revolves around the teaching that the Christian must remain in marriage with the non-Christian. It is, in fact, the “sanctification” of the unbelieving spouse in the marital relationship which warrants the designation of the children as “holy,” not the direct link to the believing spouse as covenant household head. Anyway, how can the believing wife be considered a “covenant head” when her husband is present as the basis for household baptism? Instead of justifying infant baptism from this text, it is much more likely that Paul is defending the legitimacy of the mixed marriage and, therefore, the legitimacy of the children in contrast to the practice in Ezra’s day:

For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy [seed] has intermingled with the peoples of the lands; indeed, the hands of the princes and the rulers have been foremost in this unfaithfulness. (Ezra 9:2) 

So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble a the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. (Ezra 10:3) 

Now, therefore, make confession to the Lord God of your fathers, and do His will; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and form the foreign wives. (Ezra 10:11; all italics added)

The holiness of the children in 1 Cor. 7:14 is not based on the direct link with the believing parent, but rather through the unbelieving parent’s sanctified link to the believer. The example of Ezra is changed under the New Covenant. Now mixed marriages are holy and so are the children. There is no basis for the covenant household baptism of children in 1 Cor. 7:14; it is not even mentioned in the text. Rather, Paul is trying to save mixed marriages and assure believing parents that their children are not “unclean” but legitimate and “holy” in God’s eyes (Ezra 9:2; 10:3, 11).

For all these reasons, we must conclude that John’s baptism, Jesus’ baptism, and Christian baptism are not to be artificially separated as some paedobaptists have done. There is an historical and exegetical connection between them. Thus, Scripture provides no sure evidence that the subjects of baptism after Pentecost were any different than the subjects before, that of confessing disciples alone.

3. The subjects of baptism, circumcision, and paedobaptist objections

According to paedobaptists, circumcision and baptism are parallel signs and seals of their respective covenants.[6] Therefore, by a supposed “good and necessary inference,” the subjects of baptism must be the same as the subjects of circumcision (i.e., believers and their infant seed). However, this unnecessary inferential logic does not follow the path of revelation.

In this section, we will explore the relationship between the Abrahamic Covenant sign of circumcision and the New Covenant sign of baptism. Is New Covenant water baptism the fulfillment and counterpart of Abrahamic Covenant circumcision? Is baptism further a sign and seal of the New Covenant to be applied to believers and their seed in the same way as circumcision was to Abraham and his seed? Again, let us go to the Scriptures to explore these issues.

The Place of Circumcision in the Old Testament

In Gen. 17:7–14, God introduced circumcision into the Abrahamic Covenant after Abraham was justified by faith, having believed in God and the certainty of His promises.

God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your seed after you; every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout their generations, a servant who is born in your house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your seed. A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.” (Gen. 17:9–14; italics added)

This covenant sign of circumcision, itself called “the covenant,” was continued among the descendants of Abraham as the defining characteristic of Jewishness. It was continued under the Sinai Covenant since that covenant was “added to” the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal. 3:19). Not to be circumcised as a member of Abraham’s household was to break the covenant. It was considered to be a refusal to enter God’s covenant administration. Yet, circumcision was not (for some unclear reason) practiced by Moses in the “church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38, Josh. 5:2–7).[7]

Further, under the Sinai addition to the Abrahamic Covenant, the covenant people were told to circumcise their hearts as well as their bodies by loving God and keeping His commandments (Dt. 10:16). This connects heart-circumcision to the writing of God’s law upon the heart (Jer. 31:31–34). They were “in” the Abrahamic and Sinaitic Covenants though their hearts might be uncircumcised. Later, God prophesies that after captivity and future restoration, in New Covenant days, He “will circumcise your heart and the heart of your seed, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live” (Dt. 30:6; italics added). The New Covenant is a covenant of heart-circumcision.

Paedobaaptists sometimes use Dt. 30:6 to justify the infant baptism of believers’ children in the New Covenant. However, what is overlooked is that this text says more than that. God promises to circumcise every heart of every New Covenant member. It is exactly this point of the prophecy that Baptists believe and emphasize. God will cause every covenant member’s heart to be circumcised. The further promise of Dt. 30:6 is that God will circumcise “the heart of your descendants” as well. This cannot mean that every descendant of every circumcised heart also will be heart-circumcised; even paedobaptist interpreters deny that. So it must mean that God promises to continue His heart work from generation to generation, with the seed of believers being those to whom the Gospel will be preached (though, of course, not exclusively) and among which God will give heart circumcision. Baptists find hope for their children in that promise to believers.

This is what God further prophesied through Jeremiah with respect to the days of the everlasting New Covenant.

Behold, I will gather them out of all the lands to which I have driven them in My anger, in My wrath, and in great indignation; and I will bring them back to this place and make them dwell in safety. And they shall be My people, and I will be their God; and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good, and for the good of their children after them. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me. (Jer. 32:37–41; italics added)

Here again, every heart in the everlasting covenant is changed and will not break the covenant. They will not turn away. This everlasting covenant is just another name for the New Covenant that cannot be broken because God promises to give a new heart to keep it. Jeremiah 32:39 does not say that every seed of the heart-changed will be heart-changed as well, but only that it will be for “the good of their children after them.” This simply means that it will be good for the children to be raised in a heart-changed home, to hear about the everlasting covenant themselves, and to know the promise to parents that God will save from among their children.

Under Abraham, every physically circumcised person was introduced into membership of his covenant. In the New Covenant, every heart-circumcised person is a member. The Abrahamic type of circumcision prospectively represented the need of a circumcised heart. The New Covenant antitype, which is heart-circumcision, fulfills that need in every member.

Circumcision in the New Testament

The NT attitude toward circumcision is one of strong opposition to it as a work for justification (Acts 15; Gal. 5:2). However, it still was practiced by many Jewish Christians out of respect for biblical tradition (Acts 21:20–21), or by Gentiles out of accommodation to Jewish customs for evangelism (1 Cor. 10:32; Acts 16:3). Paul strongly opposed the Judaizers of Galatia (Gal. 1:9) and Colosse (2:8–11) because they made circumcision a means of justification. He knew that “neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Gal. 6:15). As will be explained under the next heading, Gal. 6:15 provides an exegetical connection between circumcision as the OT type and regeneration as the superior antitype. The fulfilled circumcision of the New Covenant is regeneration (Rom. 2:28–29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11–12).

In Rom. 4:9–25, Paul cites Abraham as an example of how God justifies the believer by faith alone, apart from his works, including circumcision as a work of the law. In this passage, circumcision is called “a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he [Abraham] had while uncircumcised” (4:11). Paedobaptists take this language to mean that baptism is the exact parallel to circumcision, the corresponding New Covenant sign and seal.

It is certainly true that circumcision was called a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:11), but it was never called a seal of that covenant. Rather, in only one place in Scripture is it called a seal, and that was “of the righteousness of the faith which he [Abraham] had while uncircumcised” (Rom. 4:11). In other words, circumcision was a seal, not of every member of the Abrahamic Covenant, but of the salvation experience, or personal faith, of Abraham alone. Yet baptism is never called the seal of the New Covenant.

Instead, something else is the seal of the New Covenant. Holy Spirit regeneration is the fulfillment of what circumcision signified under the Abrahamic Covenant, i.e., a circumcised heart.

Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge (2 Cor. 1:21–22) 

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation -- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance (Eph. 1:13–14) 

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30).

The seal of the New Covenant is Holy Spirit regeneration that seals the heart of faith in direct fulfillment of Abrahamic circumcision.[8] Baptism may be called a sign of the New Covenant, but it is improper to call it the seal, a designation reserved only for Holy Spirit regeneration.

Now we are ready to define the proper relationship between Abrahamic circumcision and New Covenant baptism. Several passages explain the type-antitype fulfillment of Abrahamic circumcision under the New Covenant. However, the following passages reveal that the antitype of circumcision is not baptism but Holy Spirit regeneration. This means that circumcision and baptism are not directly parallel equivalents in their respective covenants, as paedobaptists would have us believe. Rather, we must allow the NT to interpret for us the relationship between circumcision, regeneration, and baptism.

Romans 2:25–29

Here we find that circumcision was always meant to represent the inward work of the Spirit on the heart. This was the definition of a true Jew:

For indeed circumcision is of value, if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? And will not he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. (italics added)

The outward sign of circumcision was to symbolize that which God desired inwardly of the heart. But more than that, the circumcised heart, the reality behind the symbol, also had to be present for a person (even uncircumcised Gentiles) to be a true Jew and thereby a receiver of all of God's New Covenant blessings (Phil. 3:3).

This same truth is taught in Rom. 9:6–8, where Paul says, “They are not all Israel who are from Israel” but the “children of the promise” are the elect. This is again the faithful remnant idea that began in the physical nation of Abraham’s descendants and came to fruition in the New Covenant people of God. This is further explained in Rom. 4:12–13, where the promised “seed” of Abraham are not those of physical descent, but only those who are of the faith of their father Abraham, whether circumcised or not. These, and these only, are his fulfilled “seed” (Rom. 4:23). It is those who are of faith, Jew and Gentile, who are the heart-circumcised seed of Abraham. In all these Scriptures the true Jew, or Abraham’s seed, in fulfillment of God’s promise to him, are those Jews and Gentiles who have been circumcised in the heart by the Spirit, as revealed by their faith (Gal. 3:14, 28–29).

Colossians 2:9–12

Now let me bring this discussion to bear on the question of circumcision and baptism in the New Covenant. The most quoted text to link circumcision with water baptism is Col. 2:9–12.

For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

This text has been misinterpreted by many covenant paedobaptists who attempt to make the subjects of circumcision and baptism the same. Speaking to Gentile Christians, however, Paul says that they have “been made complete” and have received the “circumcision of Christ” which is “without hands” (2:10–11). Because of that fact, they did not need to be circumcised physically by Judaizers for salvation.

What is “the circumcision of Christ” which they already had received, whether physically circumcised or not? Grammatically, the genitive, “of Christ,” may be interpreted to identify either (1) the death of Christ objectively for them as a circumcision, or (2) the experiential circumcising of the believer’s heart by Christ. Either way, Paul is speaking of the manner in which the believer has been “circumcised also” through the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection. Because of Christ’s death, we have received a better circumcision than the Judaizers could offer.

This passage indicates a definite link between circumcision and baptism. Christians have been circumcised “also” by being buried with Christ in baptism. But is Paul referring only to the actual water baptism as the counterpart of circumcision, whether infant or adult? To quote Paul from elsewhere, “May it never be!” This circumcision is “made without hands.” There is no human hand involved in its administration, whether by knife or by water. Further, Paul’s full definition of this circumcision is:

the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Col. 2:11–12)

To summarize, the Christian’s circumcision is that union with Christ’s death and resurrection, symbolized in baptism (Rom. 6:3–4), and evidenced by their personal faith in the working of God at the time of their water baptism! Infants cannot participate in this baptism until they express personal faith.

Colossians 2:13–14 also confirms this view by defining those who have received the “circumcision of Christ” as those who have actually experienced the new birth and blotting out of sins. The “us” of this passage is the “saints and faithful brethren” (1:2).

And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Col. 2:13–14; italics added)

This new life of faith by the Holy Spirit’s regeneration is the New Covenant heart-circumcision antitype which fulfills the type of OT circumcision. In this passage only people of faith were “buried with Christ in baptism”- and that because their hearts already had been circumcised. Their water baptism symbolized their prior spiritual baptism or union with Christ by faith (Rom. 6:3–4). And that baptism was applied only to those who exhibited a prior “faith in the working of God” which is exactly what the NT institutes, describes, and prescribes.

The seal of regeneration, exhibited outwardly by a confession of faith, is the true NT fulfillment, antitype, and replacement of OT circumcision. Baptism then is the sign, not the seal, of heart-circumcision by Christ. This is why water baptism should be applied only to those who confess faith in Christ as an outward evidence of that New Covenant regeneration, as the NT institutes and prescribes.

A great inconsistency of some covenant paedobaptists is that they will correctly consider union with Christ in baptism in Rom. 6:3–4 as a secondary reference to water baptism and count it primarily as a reference to the new birth.[9] Yet, at the same time, they use the same concept of union with Christ in baptism in Col. 2:11–12 as a primary reference to water baptism’s relation to circumcision instead of its clear intended purpose of relating circumcision to the new birth.[10] My conclusion is that Paul defined the circumcision of Christians in Col. 2:9–12 as primarily heart union with Christ by faith, secondarily symbolized in their water baptism as a confession of that faith which they received in regeneration (as in Rom. 6:3–4; 1 Cor. 12:13; and Gal. 3:29). Circumcision was prospective of the need of heart-circumcision; baptism is retrospective of heart-circumcision received. This is the proper connection between circumcision and baptism.

This is further corroborated by how Paul clearly designates Jesus Christ as the final physical seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16) and that only those who come to faith in Christ are now designated the seed of Abraham.

Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham (Gal. 3:7–9) 

…for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal. 3:26) 

And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal. 3:29)

The fulfillment of circumcision in the New Covenant is regeneration (not baptism), exhibited outwardly by repentance and faith in Christ. This makes one a true Jew, a son of Abraham, and a member of the New Israel (Gal. 6:16). These “of faith” seed of Abraham and of Christ, and these alone, are to be baptized.

What then is the counterpart and antitype of the OT sign and seal of circumcision in the New Covenant? The Scriptures define it to be the inward circumcision of the heart by the Spirit, which is exhibited outwardly in the disciple’s faith. As circumcision (the shadow or type) was the sign of entrance into the Abrahamic Covenant, and the seal of Abraham’s personal faith, so regeneration (the form or antitype) is the seal of entrance into the New Covenant (Eph. 1:13–14; Jn. 3:5–6), signified in the sign of disciple’s baptism.

Baptism is then the indirect counterpart of physical circumcision only through its association with the direct counterpart, or typological fulfillment, spiritual circumcision. This is why we only see disciple’s baptism is the NT record. It was easy to know who entered the Abrahamic Covenant; they were born into the household and were outwardly circumcised. But how can you tell if one has entered the New Covenant and has experienced spiritual circumcision, entitling them to the sign of baptism? Only by their repentance and faith, publicly signified by the outward sign of water baptism. Acts 2:37–42 is clear exegetical proof that the only ones baptized were those who received Peter’s word of repentance and faith in Christ (Acts 2:38–39, 41). They outwardly showed inward circumcision and then were baptized. This was how Christ ordained to build His church (Matt. 16:16–18; 28:19). So circumcision was a prospective sign of the need of heart-circumcision, while baptism is a retrospective sign of that heart-circumcision already received and confessed. This is the biblical connection between the two signs.

The argument for infant baptism as a direct New Covenant parallel, antitype, or fulfillment of Abrahamic circumcision simply cannot be sustained by NT evidence. Infant baptism is not a sacrament “instituted by Christ” or “prescribed by Holy Scripture.” It is an invention of well-meaning men using unnecessary inferences that allow the OT to determine how it is fulfilled in the New, rather than depending upon the New to determine how the Old is fulfilled in it.

For this reason, the sign of baptism may be applied only to disciples who show evidence of the Holy Spirit’s seal, regeneration, revealed in their outward repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a baptism of disciples alone: solus discipulus!

Paedobaptist objections to “disciples alone” baptism

Paedobaptists often object that many who seemed to be in the New Covenant by profession finally fall away, seeming to break the New Covenant itself. This proves, they say, that one can be “in” the New Covenant as possibly unregenerate infants, entitled to paedobaptism, and yet finally be put “out” of it as covenant breakers. Some erroneously point to Jn. 15:1–8, Rom. 11:11–24, Heb. 6:4–8 and 10:29 as examples sustaining their view that it is possible to break the New Covenant. Thus it is permissible to baptize infants in the breakable New Covenant as real members. This view also claims that, since many who are baptized as disciples fall away, that credobaptism is no more a guarantee of a pure church than paedobaptism. Thus, credobaptism does not stand.

Baptists agree that there are those who profess faith in Christ and seem to be members of the New Covenant and church universal, who seem to be recipients of all of its blessings, but who ultimately fall away as false professors. But most Reformed Baptists would say that individuals who fall away were never members of the effectual New Covenant with its realized blessings to begin with; they only appeared to be (Heb. 6:4–8; 1 Jn. 2:19). They were given baptism, made visible church members, and admitted to the Lord’s Supper on the basis of their profession of faith in charitable hopes that they were true members of the New Covenant and church universal, but not because the New Covenant of its nature includes those who prove to be covenant breakers.[11] These individuals may have made a verbal covenant confession out of some motive other than true repentance and faith in Christ, but God never “made a new covenant” with them. Rather, as our Lord said, “I never knew you” (Matt. 7:23).

The biblical data overwhelmingly supports the institution and practice of credobaptism. Paedobaptism is built on inadequate inference from OT circumcision and from silence in the NT. We all use silence to some degree, but to reject a sacrament from silence is not the same as instituting a sacrament never mentioned. All New Covenant sacraments must be positively instituted by revelation, not from inference or silence. Thus, Baptists practice the baptism of disciples alone.

Practical Conclusion

1. The subjects of baptism and evangelism

The practice of credobaptism demands that evangelism assumes all men to be under God’s curse in the Covenant of Works until they repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:12–19). Therefore, all adults and children (even of believers) must be warned of their condemnation under the law and their need to repent and believe the Gospel. We must make disciples of all the nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Some who practice paedobaptism assume that their infants and children are already in the New Covenant and are called by God to accept the demands of the covenant in obedience. Others assume that their children are “Christians,” tell them so, and treat them as such instead of evangelizing them. Both practices assume too much for the children’s standing with God based on their covenant membership. Even worse, they lead to parental confusion concerning the spiritual condition of believers’ children, possible false presumption on the part of the children concerning their own salvation, and the possible withholding of Gospel evangelism from little children.

The baptism of disciples alone obeys the command that God is now declaring that all men everywhere repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38–41). Baptism is the outward sign of those who have confessed themselves to be disciples of Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18–20).

2. The subjects of baptism and ecclesiology

The Great Commission calls baptized disciples to be instructed in all that Jesus commanded and taught. This requires that local assemblies of disciples be gathered for worship, edification, discipline, and instruction. Only those who clearly understand and profess the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be baptized and admitted to the visible church.

This ecclesiology of credobaptism also permits disciples in an area devoid of a sound church to gather together and to start a church to carry out the Great Commission of our Lord. If there is no assembly of disciples alone which is teaching all that Jesus taught, then it is permissible to begin a new work out of the Scriptures. In a day when there is a great temptation for Reformed Baptists to join a Reformed paedobaptist church out of convenience, the doctrine of disciple’s baptism alone calls them to band together to begin sound Baptist churches so that no parents or children will be misled concerning the spiritual condition of children. The three marks of a true church of Jesus Christ include the right administration of the sacraments. That cannot be compromised for convenience. The Bible teaches the baptism of disciples alone.

Notes

1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1967) 2, bk. 4, ch. 15, par. 20:1320.b.
2. John Murray, Christian Baptism (Nutley, NJ: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970), 72. Murray rephrases the WCF’s phrase to read “good and necessary inference.”
3. An Appendix to the 1689 London Baptist Confession, (unpublished manuscript, 1689), 1.
4. O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2000), 43–45. Robertson reserves the title “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:15–16) in the New Covenant only for Jews and Gentiles who are justified by faith and are members of the universal church. This is exactly the Reformed/Covenantal Baptist position when identifying the members of the New Covenant. Only the regenerate are members, not believers and their seed.
5. The inference is unnecessary because we have positive institution. Inference may be necessary and valid, when explicit mention is wanting. However, in the case of the subjects of baptism, we have explicit mention or positive command.
6. Murray, Christian Baptism, 50–61; and Robertson, Israel, 147–166.
7. The fact that circumcision was not practiced in what Stephen called “the church in the wilderness” has fascinated me. Paedobaptists argue that the church in the wilderness is one with the New Testament church. This one-to-one comparison is sometimes used as an argument for infant baptism; that is, the wilderness church was made of covenant members and their seed, so the New Testament church must be made up of covenant members and their seed. Yet, the seed of the wilderness church were not circumcised. If one wishes to push the identity between the wilderness church and the New Testament church, then it would appear that the New Testament church should not apply the covenant sign to infants as the “church in the wilderness” did not. This argues against infant baptism. Attempts to make the Old Testament and the New Testament people of God identical in every detail fail in the light of such inconsistencies.
8. O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980), 161–162. Dr. Robertson correctly identifies regeneration as the typological fulfillment of Abrahamic circumcision. However, he inconsistently asserts that baptism replaces circumcision. Rather, he should have said that regeneration replaces circumcision, of which baptism is the outward sign.
9. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., re. 1984), 214–215; see n. 3 on 215; and Murray, Christian Baptism, 29–33.
10. Ibid., 50-51.
11. See the treatment by James R. White.