There are two contrasting views on whom should be baptized. Credobaptists contend that only believers should be baptized and paedobaptists advocate for infants to be baptized.
There are some groups of paedobaptists that believe infant baptism is necessary for salvation. Roman Catholic Church believes that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation and therefore unbaptized infants go to Limbus Infantium. Augustine believed in the eternal damnation of unbaptized infants (Bowman, Infant Salvation, 1).
Augustine wrote: It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation (Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and on the Baptism of Infants, Book I, chapter 21, AD 412).
Covenant theologians also believe that infants must be baptized because Old Testament infants were circumcised. Their argument says that since circumcision and baptism are closely linked in Colossians 2:11-12 infants must be baptized.
Argument from Colossians 2:11-12
Douglas O’Donnell, senior lecturer in biblical studies and practical theology at Queensland Theological College in Brisbane, offers this argument for infant baptism:
There were two signs of the covenant in the Old Testament—circumcision and the Passover. It is fairly clear that the Lord’s Supper replaces the Passover. That baptism replaces circumcision seems logical (a point from Colossians 2:11–12?), but the exegetical connection is not certain.
Guy M. Richard, president of Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta, is much more certain that Colossians 2:11-12 teaches infant baptism: Colossians 2:11–12 makes the theological connection between circumcision and baptism explicit by applying both spiritual circumcision (of the heart) and spiritual baptism (of the Holy Spirit) to the Christian. If inward circumcision and inward baptism are linked, then surely their outward signs—that is, physical circumcision and water baptism—are as well (“Paedobaptism” in Tabletalk. click to open).
My response is that Paul is clearly not talking about physical circumcision but spiritual circumcision in Colossians 2:11 when he writes about “the circumcision made without hands.” Neither is Paul talking about physical baptism but spiritual baptism in Colossians 2:12. Paul does not make the connection between physical circumcision and infant baptism. That connection has to be read into the text.
Our spiritual circumcision (v. 11) took place when God regenerated us (cf. Gal. 5:24). It involved Christ cutting off the domination of our sinful nature (flesh), which slavery characterizes the unregenerate person (cf. Rom. 7:24-25). “Baptism” (v. 12) is Spirit baptism (Thomas Constable at netbible.org).
Argument from Covenant Theology
O’Donnell continues: Some of the important texts on infant baptism are not “baptism” texts, notably Abraham and his new covenant faith (Romans 4) and Paul’s view of the children of believers (1 Cor. 7:12–14; Eph. 6:1). Are we still under the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant of grace? If so, how should we treat our children? Perhaps like Abraham treated Isaac—as an heir of the covenant (Hughes, R. Kent. The Pastor's Book, Crossway. Kindle Edition, 402).
Paedobaptists equate the Abrahamic Covenant with the New Covenant in defending infant baptism.
“The argument rests on the covenant theology concept of a single covenant of grace which involved an initiatory rite into that covenant, the rite being circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New Testament. These rites indicate membership in the covenant, not necessarily personal faith” (Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 423).
Guy M. Richard who is a paedobaptist makes this argument: “Galatians 3:16 and Romans 4:11–12, furthermore, teach us that the Abrahamic covenant is essentially the same as the new covenant”(Guy M. Richard “Paedobaptism” at Tabletalk (click to open).
In the Old Testament, the Abrahamic Covenant found originally in Genesis 12 and the New Covenant given to Israel in Jeremiah 30:34 are two separate covenants. The two covenants are never connected in the New Testament. In Romans 4:11-12, Paul is teaching the doctrine of imputation which is by faith in 4:3 and not works which includes circumcision. Paul is downplaying the importance of circumcision not making a connection to baptism of infants.
“Baptism is the initiatory rite into a believing community, the church; therefore it should only be done to believers. By contrast, circumcision initiated people (including infants) into a theocracy which did have unbelievers in it” (Ryrie, 423). “There is no Biblical parallel, for circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17:9-4); whereas, baptism in the New Testament identifies with the local church. If the two were parallel then covenant theologians cannot explain why infant girls are baptized” (Hoyle Bowman, Advanced Ecclesiology, 38).
Argument from Titus 3:3-7
O’Donnell continued to argue for infant baptism: Titus 3:3–7 is important for at least two reasons: (1) it shows the link between regeneration and Spirit baptism using the water metaphor, and (2) the water metaphor is pouring (Hughes, R. Kent. The Pastor's Book (p. 402). Crossway. Kindle Edition).
Salvation is the subject of Paul in Titus 3:3-7, not baptism, and pouring is never used in reference to water baptism. The word “baptize” means to immerse. Lexicons define the Greek word baptizo to mean to dip, immerse, or submerge. “The intens. βαπτίζω occurs in the sense of ‘to immerse’ (trans.) from the time of Hippocrates, in Plato and esp. in later writers, ‘to sink the ship’” (The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament). To immerse is how the word is used in Scripture (Lk.16:24). There is a word for sprinkling in Scripture: ῥαντισμός rantismos (1 Pet.1:2). There is also a word for pouring in Scripture: ἐκχέω ekcheo (Acts 2:17). But neither of these words is used for baptism.
Argument from “household salvation”
Guy M. Richard writes: Ever since Genesis 17, God’s people had been practicing “household” circumcision, applying the outward sign of God’s inward covenant to professing adult believers (who never received it before) and to their children. Indeed, we would expect to find some mention in the New Testament if, after thousands of years of including children in the covenant community as recipients of the covenant sign, things were supposed to be so radically different in the new covenant era. Are we really to believe that children are now cut out of the covenant community and that the old covenant is, for that reason, greater and more inclusive than the new? What is the basis for this? It runs counter to the principle of expansion that we see at work everywhere else when we move from Old to New Testament. Not only is paedobaptism consistent with the continuity that we see between the covenants and between the covenant signs, but it is also consistent with this principle of expansion because it applies the covenant sign to both men and women and to their male and female children.
Notice that it is the principle of expansion that qualifies infant baptism as part of household salvation instead of New Testament references such as Acts 16:31-34 which states that only those who believed were baptized which excludes infants.
Paedobaptist Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology makes this admission: “Although the NT contains no direct evidence for the practice of infant baptism in the church this is due more to the fact that the apostolic age was primarily a missionary period which focused on the baptism of adults” (Systematic Theology, 632-634). It seems to reach children in its missionary outreach would have been very important for the church to not just baptize adults but infants if it were biblical. The apostolic church did not practice infant baptism because it was not an effective method for outreach but because the Scriptures taught only believer’s baptism.
The Biblical order is that baptism follows faith in Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:19 and Acts 2:37-38) and infants cannot believe. In order for the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 to be fulfilled, the baptized must be taught to observe what Jesus taught which is impossible for infants.