How Young Is Too Young? Children and Baptism
April 11th, 2007
Here at Grace Community Church, we are firmly committed to believers’ baptism — meaning that we do not see Scriptural precedent for the baptism of unbelievers, including infants. (We would agree with John Piper that if our covenantal brethren applied their reformed view of baptism/circumcision consistently, they too would abandon the practice of infant baptism. But that’s for another post. Those who want to think through the baptism issue are encouraged to listen to this debate, between John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul.)
As baptists, our church continually faces the question reflected in the title of this post: How old must a child be before he or she is ready to be baptized? This very question was asked in the comments section a couple days back, and it is an important one.
The Bible does not put an age requirement on baptism. But it does describe water baptism as a post-conversion act of identification with Christ. In Acts 2:38, Peter emphasized repentance as a corollary to baptism. In verse 41 of that same chapter, Luke records that it was “those who had received his word” that were baptized. Acts 16:34 indicates that the Philippian Jailer’s household believed before they were baptized. Colossians 2:11-12, 1 Peter 3:18-21, and other passages associate baptism with saving faith; and even the order of the Great Commission puts “making disciples” before “baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19).
Thus, without putting an age-requirement on baptism, the Bible indicates that a person must understand the gospel, repent of his or her sin, and savingly trust in Christ before being baptized. If water baptism is an external sign of genuine conversion, then genuine conversion must take place first.
At what point, then, is a child capable of understanding the gospel, repenting from sin, and savingly trusting in Christ? Again, Scripture gives no specific age limit. In our experience, however, we have found that most children do not really begin to objectively evaluate their own thoughts until they reach junior high. Before then, they usually feel little concern over the contradictory values to which they cling. Seldom during elementary years do they conscientiously think about and spiritually evaluate life’s demands independently of their parents.
This does not mean that all young children are incapable of committing the rest of their lives to Christ and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. However, prior to adolescence, few children truly appreciate the significance of their separation from God, and few have sufficient mental sophistication to project far enough into the future to commit “the rest of their lives” to anything.
Although we do baptize eleven or twelve year olds from time to time at Grace Church, our children’s pastor spends enough time in conversation with them beforehand to settle any doubts he may have in two areas: (1) has the child actually rejected a worldly set of values in making his commitment to Christ? (2) can he project far enough into the future to make a lifelong commitment?
If these issues are resolved, we proceed to evaluate whether or not the child has an understanding of salvation by grace apart from works, and we seek verification from others that he or she demonstrates the fruit of the Spirit in everyday life. We believe a child who can meet these qualifications is ready to identify with Christ and His church through believer’s baptism.
The temptation for many parents is to rush their child’s baptism. Our elders here at Grace Church believe it is better to wait, and be absolutely convinced of a child’s conversion, than to baptize the child prematurely — and thereby potentially give an unsaved child a false sense of assurance.
During my 12 years as a Christian, I have vascilated back and forth between the two dominant views within Protestantism, paedo-baptism and believer’s baptism. I have held to each at least once, and have changed from each view to the other at least once. I have listened to, read and seriously studied each position from a number of sources, as well as arguments against the opposing position, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
But what I have recently concluded is that although there is much evidence that each side presents, neither view is mandated by Scripture. It is interesting that both the age and mode of administration were explicitly detailed in circumcision. Not so for baptism. Each side has reached its conclusions by deductive reasoning using presuppositions formed by other areas of systematic theology. I’ve been struggling all these years with the question, “which view does Scrpiture mandate?” instead of the question “does Scripture require adherence to either view at all?”
So now I see each view as one not mandated by the bible, but as a tradition. Age (whether infant, adult or professing older child) or mode (sprinkling, pouring or immersion) have merely evolved as traditions. If any of these were required by God as an absolute, He would have explicitly commanded such.
So now I hold the view that any combination of these ages and modes is valid *as tradition* within biblical doctrine. I won’t hold anybody’s [not unbiblical] baptism against them. I see this as a good step toward unity, and it has been wonderful in freeing me from the sectarian bias I have so often used in holding my brethren in contempt - from both sides of this debate.
Quite a timely post for our family in particular. We have an 8 year old who’s been showing an interest in being baptised for the last 2 years, and just recently has begun to ask about it again.
To know that a child is old enough (mature enough, regardless of age) to really understand and value what it means to be baptised and to be able to project into the future to make that lifelong committment is a very important aspect for us as parents. (In fact, it was the very aspect of this topic we discussed on the way home from church on Sunday).
Thank you for this post, it’s helped a lot.
SDG!
Good study to ponder. Baptism is quite a debated subject.
As long as one reveres it as an essential command of our Lord, and that it has no bearing on a souls salvation, then we surely can agree to disagree. Even over modes.
I came across an excellent thought from Tell the Truth, an evangelism book by Will Metzger. To paraphrase:
Christ said that to be his disciple one must take up his cross. Children may be genuinely converted when they are younger, but it is usually not until adolescence that they take up their cross - suffering the scorn of their peers for their faith. The maturity and growing assurance that come with persecution are often delayed when young children are converted.
This will certainly have an effect on how the church evaluates conversion, which consequently influences the question of when to baptize.
At what point does your children’s pastor feel confident that a child is a viable candidate for baptism? That seems like it would be a largely subjective determination for kids who have been raised up in the lingo of the church.
Extending the discussion - what about a 14-16 year old who proclaims faith, is slowly preparing for baptism, and a Communion service rolls by? Does a parent discourage such a child to participate in communion, or can they take part before baptism?
Kevin and Matt,
Great questions. Let me offer a couple thoughts in response…
1) Regarding Kevin’s question: you are right, there is an element of subjectivity in the whole thing (there always will be, since only God truly knows a person’s heart). But Scripture does give us some “objective” criteria by which we can assess someone’s profession of faith (most clearly seen in 1 John). These “fruit” exhibit themselves in a love for God, a love for the truth (His Word), and a love for others. When interacting with kids who have grown up in the church (and therefore know all the right things to say), the pastor must work hard at getting beneath the surface, so as to discern (as best he can) whether there is a genuine love for Christ or whether there is only nominal lip-service. If there is a question about the child’s profession, it is probably best to wait on baptizing them.
2) Regarding Matt’s question: here at Grace Church, we would permit a non-baptized believer to participate in Communion, provided that individual was willing to be baptized (and was actively pursuing baptism). Because baptism is an act of obedience, those who are unwilling to be baptized exhibit a unwillingness to obey — and therefore cannot participate in the Lord’s Table in a worthy manner. For children who are believers and who desire to be baptized (but who have been asked to wait), we would not prohibit participation in the Lord’s Table. Rather, we would leave that decision up to the parents of that child.
Having said all this, we recognize that baptism is an external symbol of conversion and of placement into the body of Christ. The Lord’s Table, on the other hand, is an external symbol of continuing communion within the body of Christ. It is ideal, then, for baptism to precede communion. However, we would not prohibit an unbaptized Christian from participating in communion provided they are willing to be obedient in that important area.
For those interested, Pastor Bruce Blakey recently did a three part series on this topic at our church. You can download the audio files here.
Thanks for all your comments.
NB
I have a question about the Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 references given here and on Piper’s link. I currently attend a church that believes that immersion IS necessary for salvation. They point specifically to those references in their defense.
I have to admit, they seem pretty clear although I still don’t believe baptism is necessary. Since there is such a multitude of verses that do not include baptism when speaking about salvation, could someone shed a little light on this for me (especially the Acts passage)?
Thanks!
One thing that makes me nervous about this post is a perceived responsibility from the church to assess the condition of one’s soul. It is said that the concern is to test the validity of the confession, but it seems like splitting hairs.
Where does the New Testament instruct the church to such rigorous examination of baptism candidates. Consider the fact that Simon the Sorcerer was baptized (Acts 8:13). It wouldn’t even be a farfetched conclusion to assume that Judas Iscariot was both baptized and one who performed baptism (see John 3:22, 4:2).
Good baptism preparation will not prevent apostasy.
Randy , You are right in seeing how necessary baptism is to salvation. And baptism is being saved by grace through faith. The one who is baptized ( actually a better transaltion is immersed )is a person who understands he or she is a sinner and is in need of the blood of Jesus to be saved. In baptism a person reaches out to accept the finished work of Jesus at the cross and to trust in that moment of obedience his or her sins will be forgiven. There are numerous examples throughout the book of Acts.
Randy and Ray,
This post was not really intended to spark a discussion about baptismal regeneration, but it is something worth talking about.
Below is a brief article that comes from the Shepherds’ Fellowship website, written in response to baptismal regeneration (the belief that water baptism is necessary for salvation). It is not overly in-depth, but hopefully it will be helpful as a preliminary answer to your questions.
****
Some have contended that water baptism is a condition for salvation based upon Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16. When interpreting those two verses, the whole of Scripture must be considered.
All of Scripture is unanimous that there are no righteous works a man can do to be saved (Ephesians 2:8‑9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9). Salvation is an act of God performed through His Son, Jesus Christ, making it possible for man to enter God’s presence (John 3:16; Romans 5:8‑11; 2 Corinthians 5:21; cf. Psalm 24). Water baptism has no more redemptive power in this age than circumcision had in the Old Covenant.
Although circumcision was required under the Old Covenant, it was not the essential element for salvation‑‑faith was (Romans 4:3‑4). A person who believed but had not been circumcised was saved. Paul wrote, “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?…And circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Romans 2:27-29).
The same principle holds true under the New Covenant. The requirement for salvation is faith (Romans 10:9). Water baptism is the public confession of that faith, but the person who believes is saved even before he is baptized. Acts 10:47‑48 tells us Cornelius and his household were possessors of the Holy Spirit, and thus, true believers. Yet they were not baptized with water until after their salvation! And Paul separates the two when he says, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel…” (1 Corinthians 1:17).
We also believe that Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief.
Baptism is an outward, physical act–unlike faith or repentance. Therefore it is considered one of the “works” that cannot save (Romans 3:20). As with the Lord’s Supper, however, someone who refuses to participate in it (and thus disobeys God) gives evidence of never having true faith in Christ.
Scott G.
Thanks for your comment and your concern. You are absolutely right in noting that good baptism preparation does not necessarily prevent apostasy.
At the same time, when it comes to children, God has given a unique responsibility to adults (primarily, parents) to help shepherd the spiritual development of the children under their care. In large part, this means that parents must take biblical principles and, using wisdom and discernment, make practical decisions.
Our position at Grace Church comes from a desire to honor the biblical principle that baptism be reserved for believers, and that it be taken seriously.
To be sure, parents (and pastors) cannot judge their children’s hearts perfectly. Nonetheless, in order to honor the biblical principle of believer’s baptism, we want to be careful not to rush children into the waters of baptism too quickly. We want to make sure they understand the significance of what they are doing, in giving testimony to God’s amazing grace and in publicly declaring their lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ.
Thanks again for your comments. Hope this helps.
- NB
Randy, I too used to attend a church like yours that taught that one had to be baptized to be saved. Something that helped me immensely was learning about an important key to understanding the scriptures. Although there are a few verses that seem to teach that baptism saves, there are countless others (Old Testament and New) which teach otherwise. A key bible study principle is this: Use the clear passages to interpret the less clear. At least a couple of the verses they use are not real clear, so we must use the clear scriptures to interpret the less clear. The clear scriptures which teach that we are saved by grace through faith are so numerous. Therefore it follows that since scripture does not contradict itself, then the passages which seem to teach that baptism saves are not in fact teaching that at all. So, don’t begin with the few verses that seem to teach baptism saves. Begin with all of the other verses in understanding how we are saved, and then interpret Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 in light of those. I believe that one could say that the “for the forgiveness of your sins” in Acts 2:38 can mean “since you are forgiven.” Another possibility (and one that is consistent with other scriptures) is that the repentance is what leads to forgiveness, not the baptism. There are at least a couple of interpretations for 1 Peter too that are consistent with the rest of scripture. You are on the right track. May the Lord guide you into all truth.
[…] April 11, 2007 Posted by Chase Sears in Practical Theology, Baptism, Theology, Ministry. trackback At Pulpit Magazine there is an interesting article on Baptizing children. This is a subject thatI’m have conflicting ideas over. My initial thought is, we should not baptize children until they are of age to show they have a geniune understanding and belief in the Gospel. After all, I think I was a child who prooved not to have a right understanding and belief in the Gospel. However, I have difficulties justifying that initial thought when I read the Scripture. The pattern seems to be once a person professes Christ, he or she is immediatly baptized. I don’t see a biblical precedent for waiting for fruit? So what do you all think? I’d love to read some well thoughout arguments for both sides. […]
Nate and Others,
While I think a reasonable amount of examination is good, and we do a children’s class, talk to parents, listen for a clear profession of repentance and faith and some evidence of change, I strongly hesitate to set an age requirement of any sort. If baptism is an act of obedience as we say it is, and we teach that in our church and Sunday school, what happens when we have children respond to this teaching sincerely with their childlike faith and desire to be baptized? To teach the truth, see them respond, then tell them they need to wait until a certain age seems dangerous for them and us.
I appreciate the discussion. It is very helpful.
Baptism is a response of faith. Gal. 3 : 26 and 27. It is what is involved in obedient faith . Romans 1 : 5 .
It is essential for salvation. I Peter 3 : 21 .
Ray B.,
Please don’t read a mean-spirited comment here, but now I understand the difficulty you were having answering the questions I posed here. It is foreign to talk about the nature of God’s grace as revealed in Scripture when your salvation is conditioned upon a physical act.
A new heart that by nature operates in faith is a gift (Eph 2:8-9). Baptism is obedience in response to the gift. But the gift is not taken back if you are not baptized (Rom 11:29). Nor is the gift delayed until you are baptized.
Kevin, No , I do not think your response is mean - spirited.
Baptism is when you reach out and accept the gift, not the taking back of a gift or the delay , just the moment of accepting by faith the gift that does come because of the blood shed at the cross of Jesus Christ.
I did answer your previous questions. I just did not know what else to say .I am not Calvinistic in my thinking of scripture.
Baptism is a spiritual step of obedient faith.
Steve Scott,
You said: “Each side has reached its conclusions by deductive reasoning using presuppositions formed by other areas of systematic theology.”
I’m curious, coming from a believer’s baptism view, what you found in your studies about believer’s baptism (b-b) that is based on “presuppositions formed by other areas of systematic theology.” I’m not sure where I would find a doctrine informing b-b in another area of my theology. Except harmonizing with it in soteriology (saved by faith alone, grace alone, in Christ alone, and not by works).
Your conclusions seem to say to me that the Bible doesn’t teach clearly enough about baptism, so choose whatever tradition fits best with your conscience. Am I wrong with that understanding of your post?
Ray B.,
I did answer your previous questions. I just did not know what else to say. I am not Calvinistic in my thinking of scripture. Baptism is a spiritual step of obedient faith.
I am glad that you do not view my comments to you as mean-spirited. Sometimes in this medium it is easy to misunderstand tone. I disagree with you, but in my disagreement I would rather have a reasoned dialogue, not a snarky exchange.
That being said, (still not being snarky here) I perceive that your difficulty with the “Calvinistic thinking of Scripture” stems from the emphasis you seem to place on baptism as a means of regeneration in addition to faith in Christ.
Setting that aside, as others are addressing that issue much more eloquently than I in the next post, the question goes back to where does a fallen man even get the desire to be obedient to Christ?
Kevin,
Through the preaching of the gospel. It is a constant in the book of Acts.
The discussion is good. I have dialogued with people about scripture for many years. Keep it going. Sometimes I cannot get right back and this weekend I will be away from the computer but I will keep on answering when possible.
Ray B.,
Where do the ears come from to hear the gospel? Desire comes from understanding, and in John 3.3 it is written, “exept one is born from above he is not able to see the Kingdom.” The word for see here is eido which means to “know” or to comprehend with the mind. Literally it could mean sight, but it goes further than that, for Jesus in quoting Isaiah speaks of the eyes of the understanding being necessary for the repentant sinner to be able to turn and be saved. Those same Scriptures also include the ears.
Now it is a well known fact that when conception happens, (at conception a thing is born), the fetus has to develope the equipment to be able to hear. The word born come from the Old English word borne which means to be carried. Birth happens later when the one who has been born along breaks forth from the womb. So it is true that God has been knowing us from before we were formed in the womb. In other words, a person is born again long before they are ever able to discern, and therefore to desire to come to the Son. As Jesus said, the wind comes from where we know not but we see the effect of it. So is everyone who is born from above. That stange word anothen, beside meaning from above, carries the meaning “from the beginning,” also.
Baptism then comes after salvation and is not in obedience to faith but is born of it. This is neither a paedo or believers baptimal truth. John the baptist was a believer from the womb, so was David and Jeremiah. Perhaps Paul also. In Paul’s case it is obvious that his conversion in the “declarative” sense happened long after he was “called from the womb for this very pupose.” And, I do not remember his baptism….and he was not sent to baptize, laying to waste the idea that it is necessary, demanded, or an anxious expediency. But it is expected.
I happen to believe in believer’s baptism. That means that a person is a believer when they are baptised, not a believer as a result of their baptism. For your formula to work, Ray, a person could not make the confession that they are believers in Christ until after they came up out of the water. What perameters then, do you use to determine who should be baptized? Seeing that, “For God loved the world in this way, that he gave his only begotten Son that that the ones who are believing in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
I have to agree that most of the reasoning and the means by which we baptize has to do with tradition. There is far more to commend believer’s baptism, however, especially in the aspect of public testimony. But, that is rarely carried out. Usually, baptism is portrayed as “all about us,” and done behind closed doors with no public proclaimation outside the four walls of the church. It is seldom made clear that it is all about what Jesus has done for us: His perfect life, his death, and his resurrecion, all given to us. It is not made clear that it is in the rising out of the water that the benefits of Christ’ perfect life and his death; conviction, repentence, santification, and so forth are imputed to us. It is in the risen newness of life and the sight that is afforded by it that we can see the kingdom, hear the word of God and receive the faith by which we can believe into Christ, turn from sin and live in holiness. Far too often churches, and this is especially true of my SBC brethren, get it backwards.
My preference is that a person is not baptized until they can make a well reasoned confession. Since the idea of catechesis is no longer if vogue it makes it difficult for churches to set a mark. My daughter was baptized by me under the auspices of my pastor. But, I had her write her testimony and along with it and my announcement of her public testimony published in the newspaper, I baptized her in public, in a lake here in Cheyenne. My reasoning for this is Scripture. The testimony to the separtation that Christ has made of us from the world according to his choice should be public for the very purpose of preaching the Gospel by demonstration of its truth much like Abraham’s offering of Isaac. The true “good works,” that James speaks of is the faithful testimony to the world of Christ’s works.
If I had my way our church would require catechism before baptism. Some may think that foolish. But, consider this: Though the disciples were called by Christ, he did not baptize them. There is no record of their baptism except for some who were baptized by John. A baptism which did not suffice as is testified to in Acts. They were taught by Christ for more than three years and were not “baptized” until Pentecost, if we are to take that as their baptism. The fact remains, that solid instruction, and truth filled understanding empowered by the Holy Spirit is the norm. Prudence teaches us that knowledge comes before understanding and wisdom from that. The first thing, and most precious of all to be sought is wisdom, “sell everything and buy her.” When she is mature, wisdom will bring the youth before kings. Until then, the child should learn from its mother and father the Word which will make them wise for salvation. Then I say drown em!
Thomas ,
Thank you fpr your kind response. This discussion makes us all look into the word of God.
Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Romans 10 :17. Since the scriptures are inspired of God , (2 Tim. 3 :16 ) then the scriptures come form above. And the scriptures make you wise unto salvation.( 2 Tim. 3 :15 ). That would be my ansrwer to your question about the ears to hear the gospel.
Confession comes before faith in Romans 10 : 9 and 10. There is the example of the Ethiopian confession in Acts 8. No , I have never baptized anyone until they make a confession of faith in Jesus Christ. If they cannot make that confession then they are not ready to be baptized and to live the new life in Jesus Christ.
Sometimes in the book the Acts there were private and public baptisms. But like you I like for them to be public when possible for the purpose of the person declaring their faith and to teach those who are searching. However , there have been times in personal studies with people that they would not want to wait and would immediately like the Ethiopian and the jailer want to be immersed for the forgiveness of their sins. Because thy would see themselves as sinners needing to be cleansed in the blood of Jesus and out of their beleif in His blood cleansing them would confess and be baptized to have their sins washed away.
I cannot get away from I Peter 3 :21 . And no , I do not think the text says that baptism is the symbolism , it is Noah and the ark. It just says that baptism saves you by the resurrection of Jesus. I cannot leave out any part of the plan of salvation. Baptism does not take away from the gift status of salvation. It is all a gift but it must be received. To believe that sins are washed away in baptism is a step of faith.
I am convinced , whatever the conclusion you come to or what I come to , where I think the church must refocus is in making disciples. Too many have made shallow responses but have not persevered in faith. Could be beause we have not spent enought time teaching the total cost of discipleship. Perhaps we all need to examine our teaching and make sure it tis not weak and shallow as well.
Thank you for the discussion.