Pedobaptism: High view, low view, true view, false view?

Bible Brian
5 hours ago
62 min read

Baptism is a surprisingly debated issue within the Church, as I contend has always been the case. Recently, I was given a pleasant reminder that these debates do not need to be as contentious as they can often become. A page by the name of Concordia Sea Panda (represented by an orca whale) posted the following: "I think it’s kinda funny that the denomination named after Baptism actually has a really low and non-historical view of what is happening during Baptism! I love my Baptists brothers and sisters, but this was one reason I left the SBC for Lutheranism. Sacraments mean something. It is God’s Word with the water, not just the water."

As stated in our Statement of Faith, I believe "There are true Christians in every denomination, but there are no true Christian denominations". Therefore, I refuse to claim one, preferring to just believe whatever my study of Scripture suggests is true. If that happens to line up more with one denomination than another, I take that as a positive. It's a positive for the denomination, because if they got the same answer, they probably used the same, Bible-centric approach (and of course, I would suggest it also means they got the right answer). It's a positive for me because it confirms that I'm not just plucking random nonsense from the air, and "my" interpretation is, as a bare minimum, plausible.

It is my firm belief that Bible study is designed to be both an individual (Psalm 119) and community (Acts 17:11) effort. The community effort keeps the individual in check, accounting for individual weakness, presenting a traditional framework, buffering individual error, and providing accountability when sin raises its ugly head. But the community itself is made of individuals, whose diligent study should prevent the cultural group-think that allows heresy to rise, spread, survive, and even occasionally resurrect.

My general apathy towards non-heretical denominations means I don't typically study them. This is to the extent that I do not truly know what Baptists believe about baptism (or indeed anything beyond the Gospel). I know stereotypes, I have read (but not memorised) various creeds and confessions, and obviously it's impossible to study anything without occasionally encountering denominations that orbit that particular issue. But I do not know what Baptists believe. However, whenever I express my views on baptism, I am often associated with them. So, naturally, I disagreed with the idea that they have a "low" view of baptism, and decided to engage. This lead to a fruitful and refreshingly respectful discussion. Eventually, Concordia Sea Panda posted a direct response to me on his page. This post is replicated below in full:

"A comment on one of my posts made the claim that infant baptism reflects a “low view” of baptism. But historically, biblically, and theologically, that claim gets things exactly backwards."

Here are ten things worth considering:

1. The real question is: who is the primary actor in baptism?

If baptism is mainly something we do for God, then yes, it makes sense to delay it until someone can consciously choose it. But Scripture consistently presents baptism as something God does for us. It forgives sins (Acts 2:38), saves (1 Peter 3:21), washes and regenerates (Titus 3:5), and unites us to Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6). That is not symbolic language. That is divine action language.

2. A decision-centered view of baptism is actually the lower view.

If baptism only becomes meaningful once I understand it and choose it, then its power rests on my awareness, sincerity, and obedience. But if baptism is grounded in God’s promise, then its power rests on Him. One makes baptism dependent on man. The other makes it dependent on God.

3. Anecdotes about people falling away prove nothing about baptism itself.

Yes, some infant-baptized people later become atheists. But so do people baptized as adults after conscious professions of faith. People fall away from preaching too. That does not invalidate preaching. Jesus Himself taught that some receive the Word and later fall away. The failure is not in God’s gifts but in human rejection of them.

4. Scripture explicitly says baptism saves.

1 Peter 3:21 does not say baptism merely symbolizes salvation. It says plainly: “Baptism now saves you.” Acts 2:38 says baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins.” Titus 3:5 calls it the “washing of regeneration.” These are not descriptions of a human symbol. These are descriptions of a means God uses to give what He promises.

5. Faith itself is a gift from God, not an intellectual achievement.

Ephesians 2:8 says faith is a gift. Romans 10:17 says faith comes through hearing the Word. Psalm 22:9 even speaks of trusting God from infancy. If faith ultimately depends on human intellectual maturity, then salvation becomes dependent on human capacity rather than divine grace.

6. Household baptisms in Scripture strongly support infant inclusion.

Entire households were baptized in Acts (Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16). No exclusions are mentioned. This fits perfectly with the biblical pattern of covenant inclusion.

7. Baptism is explicitly connected to circumcision.

Colossians 2:11–12 connects baptism to circumcision. Under the old covenant, infants were included through circumcision. It would be strange if the new covenant, which Scripture presents as greater and more expansive, suddenly excluded them.

8. The early church practiced infant baptism extremely early.

Tertullian objected to infant baptism around AD 200, which proves it already existed. Origen later explicitly stated that infant baptism was received from the apostles themselves. Irenaeus, writing even earlier around AD 180 and connected directly to the apostolic generation, speaks of Christ saving infants in baptismal language.

9. The historic Christian consensus overwhelmingly affirms infant baptism.

For roughly the first 1500 years of Christianity, infant baptism was practiced across the Christian world: East and West, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican. The rejection of infant baptism appears much later historically.

10. The irony is this: infant baptism reflects a higher view of baptism, not a lower one.

It takes seriously that baptism is God’s work, not ours. Its power does not come from our decision. It comes from His promise. It does not depend on our memory of it. It depends on His faithfulness.

The real question is simple:

Is baptism meaningful because of what we do, or because of what God does?

Historic Christianity has consistently answered: because of what God does.

This is why Luther spoke of baptism not merely as something in the past, but as an ongoing present reality. He taught that the Christian life is a “daily baptism,” a continual drowning of the old sinner and rising of the new man. He even encouraged Christians to remember their baptism during ordinary washing, not because the act itself had power, but because water reminds us of God’s promise. Luther reportedly cried out “I am baptized!” during times of despair or spiritual attack. Not “I chose,” not “I decided,” but “I am baptized.” His confidence rested not in his past decision, but in God’s past and present action. Baptism, in this view, is not a fragile human offering to God. It is a permanent divine claim on you. God has claimed you. Your sins are forgiven. And that promise does not weaken with time. It remains your entire life."

As this is a direct response to me, and one that definitely deserves thoughtful engagement to which a Facebook comment could do no justice, I asked permission to respond in article form. Concordia Sea Panda (henceforth referred to as just "Sea Panda" at his own request) graciously and enthusiastically consented. Therefore, the rest of this article will be a point by point response to that post. For sake of convenience, a collapsible contents list will be provided, allowing easy access to each point.

Defining terms

"A comment on one of my posts made the claim that infant baptism reflects a “low view” of baptism."

One thing for which Sea Panda deserves high praise is his willingness to accept correction. His original statement lacks essential context. Specifically, while my initial comment did state "As far as baptism goes, Lutherans practice pedobaptism, which I would say is actually the low view of baptism", I did clarify this in a subsequent comment. I said "I suppose "high" and "low" is more open to interpretation. Do we mean in terms of importance? Value? I interpreted it in terms of meaning. If you have the full meaning of baptism, that's a high view. If you strip it of its meaning, that's actually a low view. Similar to how Catholics have a low view of Mary even though they "venerate" her."

In other words, while it's true that I explicitly made the claim that infant baptism represents a "low view" of baptism, this was a responsive, and arguably poor choice of words on my part. When this was pointed out, Sea Panda replied "you are right, I should have made the context to the high vs low part of this. I didn’t do it intentionally or to be nefarious, I was simply trying to get to the point." As I fetched this comment to quote it, I noticed that Sea Panda has also updated the original post to reflect that (though this article will respond only to the original, as no actual content has been changed beyond this).

Because the terminology of "high vs. low view" is so widely open for interpretation, I would like to officially retract the statement. I will instead say, for purposes of this article, that I believe Pedobaptism is both erroneous, and implausible. I do not believe it is prescribed by, or compatible with Scripture, but I do not believe it to be heretical, or sinful. Credobaptism, which is taught in (but not limited to) the Baptist denominations, is a more accurate understanding of the whole Biblical data. I will not ask that Sea Panda likewise alter his own terminology, but I believe altering mine will be useful for the rest of this article. With that said, Panda's thesis is "Infant Baptism Is Not a Low View of Baptism. It Is the Opposite." Rather than oppose this, the thesis I will defend is "Credobaptism is the correct view of baptism, and Pedobaptism strays slightly from the Biblical truth".

The primary Actor

"1. The real question is: who is the primary actor in baptism?"

If baptism is mainly something we do for God, then yes, it makes sense to delay it until someone can consciously choose it. But Scripture consistently presents baptism as something God does for us. It forgives sins (Acts 2:38), saves (1 Peter 3:21), washes and regenerates (Titus 3:5), and unites us to Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6)*. That is not symbolic language. That is divine action language."

I have often said, and in other articles have explicitly written, that whenever I debate a Pedobaptist, I can anticipate exactly what they're going to say. I know the Scriptures they're going to quote, I know the historical claims they're going to run to when I put them back in context, and I know the insults and accusations they're going to launch at me when all of this inevitably fails. Sea Panda has just become the exception to the rule. While I do not agree with (most of) the interpretations he has of the verses he cited, I am intrigued by the manner in which he quoted them, and I am particularly impressed by the question he has asked based on them. Who is the primary actor in baptism?

*Relatively important side note

Upon proofreading this article prior to publication, I realised that I never directly responded to Sea Panda's use of Romans 6. This wasn't intentional, and I even have vague memories of what I intended to say, but it slipped my mind because of everything else I did end up saying. As Romans 6 is a whole chapter (23 verses long, though verses 3-6 would probably be most relevant), and it would be difficult to go back and weave it in unnecessarily, I have decided to keep this as a side note. My response would follow the same concepts I have described throughout the rest of the article. I also have another article where I go through the entire book of Romans and compare it to the Roman Catholic Church. This includes discussions on chapter 6, and how it relates to their own doctrines on baptism, from which Martin Luther drew his own beliefs.

I can grant that, as in all things Christian, God is indeed the primary Actor. In fact, Jesus makes it very clear: "“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5). If we can do nothing without Him, then even our most irrelevant good works are ultimately His primarily.

However, unlike salvation, I would argue that baptism is synergistic. God is the primary Actor, but it is a command to be obeyed by a minimum of two secondary actors. First, there is of course the Great Commission. We are commanded to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;..." (Matthew 28:19-20a). This isn't saying "sit back and let God do the baptising" (not that this is what Sea Panda is saying either), it's saying you baptise and teach the disciples you make.

The obvious flip side of this is that we are commanded to be baptised. Sea Panda ironically quoted the best verse for this, namely Acts 2:38, in which we read "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...". As Sea Panda quoted this again in point 4, we'll address his interpretation a little later, but for now, this shows that both the act of baptising, and the act of being baptised, are primarily God's works, but are also acts of obedience on our part as secondary actors.

However, an infant is no actor at all. An infant can neither request baptism as an adult can, nor refuse it as an adult can. I would argue this means the primary actor in Pedobaptism is actually man. At this point, I have not sufficiently argued this point, and it would be circular reasoning to assert it. However, I am going to contend that Pedobaptism is a man made doctrine. It is not a commandment of God, but of men, and it is obeyed by men on behalf of a non-consenting infant, who receives no benefits from it in Heaven or on Earth. For my Pedobaptist friends and brethren, please try not to misunderstand me here: That is not my argument for the position, but a statement of it. I will argue for it in the following segments.

Three types of baptism

"2. A decision-centered view of baptism is actually the lower view.

This point is similar to the first, enough that the same response can be given. But I would also add that yes, the power of water baptism does rest on a degree of awareness, sincerity, and obedience. There are two questions that must be considered here: Can one be saved without baptism, and can one be baptised without salvation?

I have intentionally titled this segment in a way that makes those questions quite awkward. In fact, the very phrase "three types of baptism" is itself theologically awkward (as is "three members of the Godhead"). Scripture explicitly tells us "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:4-6, emphasis added). However, as in all things, context is key. And while it now feels like I'm writing an article within an article within an article, we now have 4 extra questions:

1. What are the three types I'm claiming exist? (Skip to).

2. What are my Biblical justifications for this? (Skip to).

3. How do I reconcile it with the verse I just cited that is apparently devastating to my own case? (Skip to).

4. How does this affect the questions I asked about how salvation and baptism relate? (Skip to).

The three types

As briefly as possible, the three types of baptism described in Scripture are John's baptism, water baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The Biblical justifications

Regarding John's baptism, I doubt me and Sea Panda have much disagreement. But let's go to Acts 19:1-6: "And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.” Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied."

From this, we see a major distinction between John's baptism and water baptism. John preached a baptism of repentance, foreshadowing Christ. Following Pentecost, this actually became obsolete (and I would argue impossible for us today), to the extent that those who were baptised into it were ultimately re-baptised in the name of Jesus. This, I believe, sets a precedent for being re-baptised if, for whatever reason, you were baptised in error.

Slightly irrelevant side note

As an ironic anecdote, that may include myself. The theory has never been proven, but there is sufficient evidence that my father may have secretly had me baptised into the Anglican Church, choosing old family friends as my "Godparents". If true, none of the parties involved were believers. I was obviously too young, my father was aggressively atheistic and didn't want me "brainwashed" by the Church, and my so-called Godparents are a gay couple. Thus, I would have been re-baptised at 17 years old as an act of obedience, following my conversion around 15/16 years old. If baptised as a baby, it meant nothing. When baptised as a sub-adult, it meant everything.

The second kind of baptism is the one we all think about: Water baptism. On a standard account, you repent and believe, you enter the water, you get dunked, splish splash splosh, welcome to the family. Giving Scriptural basis for its existence feels kind of like giving Scriptural basis for believing the Father is God. It can be done (1 Corinthians 8:6, for example), but it just feels like anyone you encounter will take it for granted. What I need, however, is a Biblical basis for distinguishing water baptism from the third kind: The baptism of the Holy Spirit.

In this regard, God is more than just the primary Actor: He is the sole actor. First, John the Baptist himself foretold of this kind. "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." (Matthew 3:11, cf. Luke 3:16, Mark 1:8).

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't remember any fire at my baptism. I certainly don't remember Jesus doing the baptising. Nor do I believe the Holy Spirit is the water into which I was submerged. Furthermore, I don't see any water when the Apostles were baptised with the Holy Spirit. Let's head over to Acts 1:

"And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”" (v4-5). Notice the contrasts. First, whereas the Great Commission commands us to baptise, Jesus commands His disciples to wait, because they will be baptised with the Holy Spirit. This means it is an act He will perform, not an act men will perform.

Second, the contrast is between water (as John did) and the Holy Spirit. If the contrast is between water and the Holy Spirit, this kind of baptism clearly doesn't involve water. Otherwise, it wouldn't use contrasting language. Or, if it did, it would be a contrast between mere water, and water plus the Holy Spirit. Reading water into the baptism of the Holy Spirit requires similar logic to reading works into salvation by grace through faith. "Yes, it's technically absent, but it's present in the background".

Fast forward to Acts 2, this promise is fulfilled: "When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (v1-4, emphasis added).

Now, one could argue this isn't the fulfillment of Jesus' promise that they would be baptised with the Holy Spirit. I do not know, and have not asked, whether this is the argument Sea Panda would make. And frankly, I give him a little more credit than to assume it is. But obviously, this article is intended for the benefit of all who read it. So we'll roll with it. What else do you contend is? Jesus promised they would be baptised with the Holy Spirit in not many days (explicitly connecting it to John's promise that Jesus would baptise with the Holy Spirit and with fire), the Holy Spirit filled them not many days later (appearing "as of fire"), and there is no other event that would otherwise fulfill the promise.

But I'm not merely going to make a logical argument here, I'm also going to provide yet more Scripture. Acts 11:15-16, to be specific. Here, we read "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’" We see, then, how Peter explicitly connects being baptised with the Holy Spirit to receiving the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, this happens on both sides of water baptism, and with similar effects. In Acts 8:14-17, the Samarians had been baptised in the name of Jesus, but the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen upon them. By contrast, in Acts 10:44-48, the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles who heard the word, and Peter asks "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (emphasis added), before commanding them to be baptised in the name of Jesus. Note that phrase: "just as we have". This is, in other words, the same process, and it is sufficiently distinct from water baptism as to both merit, or follow it.

The reconciliation

But then how do I reconcile these three types with Ephesians 4:4-6? If there is one baptism, how can there also be three? Well, as stated, the first can be simply excluded. It's important for theology, but it's not something we actually need, or can even obtain, today. It became obsolete on the day of Pentecost. But I contend that the baptism of the Spirit, while distinct from water baptism, is also synonymous with it. How? In the same way as, for example, the Eucharist is distinct from, yet synonymous with, the body and blood of Christ. A symbol is the thing it represents. That's just how symbols are supposed to work. A wedding ring is a marriage, an image is its subject, a contract is its covenant, and so on and so forth. Thus, water baptism is one with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit Himself is one with the Father and the Son.

How does it relate to my questions?

Which brings us to the relationship to my two questions: Can you be saved without baptism, and can you be baptised without salvation? It is tempting to just say "yes". Both are indisputable. The penitent thief was never baptised, and yet he was saved (Luke 23:39-43). And of course, Sea Panda has already granted that there are people who are baptised, yet have fallen away (or are otherwise fatally heretical, like Mormons). So, one can be saved without water baptism, and one can be water baptised without salvation. But can one be saved without the baptism of the Holy Spirit, or receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit without being saved?

The former is a hard no, for this is what it means to be "born again" (John 3:3-7). Furthermore, coming back to Sea Panda's second point, it is entirely the work of God. There is nothing you can do to cause, or to revoke, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. For that reason, I also do not believe it is possible to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit without salvation. In fact, while it would be going off topic, I do believe quite firmly in the Perseverance of the Saints. Therefore, while the power of water baptism rests on the faith of the believer, the power of Spirit baptism does not.

Anecdotal apostasy

"3. Anecdotes about people falling away prove nothing about baptism itself.

This is a direct response to my original comment, which reads: "Anecdotally, I find those who were baptised as infants tend to have a low view of faith, if they even actually have it. I've literally met atheists who claim they're Christians because they were baptised as infants. Their baptism doesn't mean anything to them because they received it before it could mean anything to them. Mine, by contrast, meant something to me. It was a conscious, JOYOUS choice, because it was, as Scripture says, an answer of good conscience towards God. I even naively believed (having not yet read Scripture fully) that it would lead to an actual change. Like I'd have some kind of power against sin that I didn't already have. I still believe that those who believe should be baptised as soon as the opportunity presents itself. It's not vital (or even effective) for salvation, but it is vital for obedience, and it IS a beautiful thing. It's like an engagement ring, only significantly more sacred. But it loses its meaning when we give it to anything that breaches the womb. As Tertullian said, "let them become Christians when they can know Christ"."

In Sea Panda's defence, this was poorly worded on my part. However, Sea Panda missed my point, which is actually twofold. First, while it's poor form to argue from anecdotes rather than statistics, that is what I was attempting to do. One is, I believe, more likely to "fall away" from a faith one never had than a faith one enters with joy and enthusiasm. My personal experience bears that out. I could of course be wrong, and I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. In fact, I'm going to do the mature thing here and simply consider this argument void. It was a bad argument, I should not have used it, and I will now cease to use it unless I can find actual statistics to back it up.

But the second point is that regardless of how much more likely a baptised infant is to apostatise than a baptised adult, the point I was trying to make is that actually, both can fall away. This is because baptism is still a symbol. I do not say mere symbol, because that would be a sacrilegious disservice. However, the difference between the baptised and the unbaptised is non-existent. What does baptism actually offer? It is, of course, a command, and one who is in a position to obey it should absolutely do so, and is sinning if they do not. I cannot stress this enough: If you have repented, and believed the Gospel, but have not yet been baptised, get baptised. In that sense, there is a difference. But even a stubborn rebel who refuses baptism, yet nevertheless believes on Christ for salvation, will be saved. I would of course contend that this is unfathomable, and would question whether such a rebel truly has faith, but we are of course saved by grace, through faith, not water baptism.

Does Scripture say baptism saves?

"4. Scripture explicitly says baptism saves.

I found this point especially interesting. Sea Panda's post is very explicitly a direct response to me, and I don't think I would even have found it had he not told me so. However, this point begins with "1 Peter 3:21 does not say baptism merely symbolizes salvation." I find this intriguing, because while I did quote 1 Peter 3:21 in my comments, I did not reference it, nor did I claim it says baptism merely symbolises salvation (which is not what I believe either). I only said my own baptism "...was a conscious, JOYOUS choice, because it was, as Scripture says, an answer of good conscience towards God."

There are two possibilities here. I did ask Sea Panda directly about it, but did not receive an answer. (If I do, I will edit this article to include it as a side note under this paragraph). The first possibility is that Sea Panda is responding to me directly, but is also anticipating common Credobaptist rhetoric. I myself am on record using the verse to defend Credobaptism, and I can assure you I am neither the first, nor will I be the last, to do so.

The alternative, however, is that Sea Panda recognised the quote when I referenced it. I fully believe Sea Panda to be a diligent Bible student, and so it is no surprise to me if, when he hears it quoted, he recognises it almost as if by instinct.

Neither of these two possibilities excuse misquoting the verse. It is true, it does not say "baptism merely symbolizes salvation". It does not, however, say "baptism now saves you". This is a mere 4 words, in a verse that is, at minimum, 34. That is from the NIV (and interestingly, Luther's own translation is also 34 words). The KJV has 36.

To really show how problematic this approach is, consider 1 Corinthians 15:15: "Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up" (emphasis added). This verse, had that been an accurate quote, would be the absolute death knell of Christianity. Our central miracle would be gone. An Apostle and chief witness of Christ would be discredited. The very word of God would become disreputable trash. If that quote was a faithful representation of the verse, Christianity would be dead.

But of course, it was not. I trimmed the verse at exactly the right point, omitting key context, as to literally change the meaning. This is what has been done so frequently with "baptism now saves you". In fact, one has to be unjustifiably selective in the translation one uses to even cut that exact phrase. There are translations where one can find the words "baptism now saves you", but there are other translations that do not. This is due, in large part, to the grammatical structure of the verse in the original Greek.

Generally, I hate the "original languages" argument. Those who make it very rarely know the original languages, and very commonly make their own, convenient translations. I am among those who cannot read the original languages, and so it almost feels hypocritical to argue from them. However, I do have two justifications for doing it anyway.

The first is that I am still relying on reputable translations. I'm not just claiming the verse can be rendered in a way that conveniently supports the position I'm trying to cram into it, I have an embarrassment of riches on which to draw. In fact, as is my typical recommendation, I am going by the majority rendering. Of the more than 60 English translations available on Biblegateway, only 5 actually contain the phrase "baptism now saves you".

Relating to that, my second justification is that while I myself am not a Greek scholar, I can cite Greek scholars who do say that grammatical difficulties explain the differences in translation. Many of these are either not online, or are behind a pay wall, but an example I can give you free access to is Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers, where he writes "We may then translate, either, Which baptism also, in antitype, doth now save you, or else, Which (water) also, in antitype, now saveth you—baptism. The first is less likely, both from the order of the words in Greek, and also because of the difficulty of calling the Flood point-blank a baptism. According to the second translation, the water through which Noah was saved is said in the present day (“now,” as opposed to “in the days of Noe”) to save us (the “you” is emphatic). It does so, in the same sense as we might say, for instance, that the sprinkling of the paschal blood saves us: that is to say, it foreshadowed something which does as a fact save us." (1).

We see, then, that in the mind of Ellicott (an Anglican bishop, whose non-Baptist denomination notably still practices Pedobaptism), there are two plausible renderings based on the grammar. Neither of these are sufficiently close to "baptism now saves you", and his belief is that actually, the more likely rendering is that the water is the antitype that saves us, in the same way as the Paschal blood saves us.

Now that we see that there are different ways to render the verse, let's look at what it says in full. For sake of argument, I'm going to use the NKJV, since this tends to be the default translation I use for Bible Brain:

"There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

Already, you should be able to see that "baptism now saves you" is a woefully insufficient "quote". It does not even qualify as an adequate summary of the verse. Now, it's still not easy to deal with at first glance. But as anyone familiar with Scripture will know, it is not designed to reward the lazy. We are required to "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15).

But the commonly cited "baptism now saves you" is very much wrongly dividing the word of truth. It divides the relevant portion from its vital context. Context that is so clear that Wayne Grudem, in his widely renowned "Systematic Theology", wrote that the verse "...does not even teach that the act of baptism itself has saving power, but rather that salvation comes along through the inward exercise of faith that is represented by baptism (cf. Col. 2:12). In fact, Protestants who advocate believers’ baptism might well see in 1 Peter 3:21 some support for their position: baptism, it might be argued, is appropriately administered to anyone who is old enough personally to make ‘an appeal to God for a clear conscience’". (2).

Now, I don't personally identify as a "Protestant", and you will rarely see me use the term unironically and without air quotes. But I am living proof that he is correct. We might well, as I do, see some support for our position. I do see it as an appeal to God for a clear conscience. Which, ironically, is word for word how the verse is rendered in some of the translations that say "baptism now saves you". I certainly don't believe water baptism saves even one soul. And I'm going to make a very bold suggestion: Neither does Sea Panda.

Now, I am not saying he is insincere. I really hope I've made that clear. However, when pressed, anyone will be forced to admit that baptism is neither required for salvation, nor does it guarantee salvation. Without faith, baptism is nothing more than a 3 second bath. Or 5 if you've eaten enough pizza. So, in what sense does baptism save? There is no meaningful way. We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone. So, while it would be insufficient to say baptism is "merely" a symbol of salvation, we can only plausibly interpret it as symbolic. It is a powerful symbol. But it is still a symbol.

Moreover, just as Credobaptists must deal with the portion that is occasionally rendered "baptism now saves you", Pedobaptists are required to deal with the portion that says "but the answer of a good conscience toward God". This provides an indisputable difference between a believer who is capable of giving that answer, and an infant who is not. This, ironically, presents its own Ephesians 4:5 dilemma for Pedobaptists. If there is one baptism, why would it function so differently depending on the conscience of the one receiving it?

Moving on to Acts 2:38. This verse is a little stronger. In full, it reads "Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

The first thing to note here is the order of the command. It does not begin with baptism. Peter does not say "dunk your babies". Nor does he say "wriggle around and cry while we sprinkle you". He says repent and be baptised. This creates a connection between repentance and water baptism, and strongly implies the former comes first. Yet, repentance is foreign to one too young to even require repentance.

The second thing to note is that, as we have discussed above, receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. While this can happen either before or after water baptism, it does seem to be connected. Repent and be baptised, and you shall... In other words, be baptised with water, and you shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit.

Third, I would argue there is deeper significance to the distinction between these terms. He doesn't say "repent, and let every one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus, and you shall have your sins remitted". Rather, he says "for the remission of sins". I submit that Pedobaptists severely underestimate the range of meaning the word "for" offers. It does not always mean "to receive". In fact, you can use it in opposite senses in the same sentence. "I went to the pharmacy for paracetamol for my headache". I obviously didn't get the paracetamol to get a headache, but actually to get rid of it.

Is it not, therefore, also plausible that "for the remission of sins" means "because of"? After all, we know that regardless of whether or not we are baptised, "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”" (Acts 10:43). We do not receive the remission of sins through baptism, but through faith. But because of this faith that leads to the remission of sins, we get baptised.

Finally, we get to what I believe is my strongest point here. We need to consider how baptism was viewed in the first century, and how I believe it still should be. As I have expressed, it is not merely a symbol.

Let me show you something interesting. In Mark 16:16, we read "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Notice, the criteria for being saved is believing and being baptised. But condemnation is reserved for those who do not believe. Baptism has mysteriously disappeared.

Salvation or condemnation is a binary choice. You cannot be saved and condemned. You must be either one or the other. The reason the lack of baptism is not cited for the latter is because, as we have established, one can technically be saved by faith, yet not be water baptised.

But in the first century, this was totally unthinkable. How can one believe and not be baptised? There are reasons. Maybe you repent while nailed to a cross. Maybe you've converted in prison. Maybe you have some horrific medical issue that renders baptism non-optional. All of these are fair excuses, and your faith is sufficient to obtain salvation without water baptism. But if nothing is preventing you, nothing should prevent you.

So I contend the same thing is going on in Acts 2:38. It's not that baptism is for the remission of sins in the "to get" sense, but repentance is. In fact, repentance and salvation are often mentioned together without reference to baptism. Luke 24:47 says "...that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations...". 2 Corinthians 7:10 says "For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation...". 2 Peter 3:9 says God is "...not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." Notice baptism is absent in all of these cases, but salvation is not. The lack of baptism, by contrast, is never cited on the flip side.

I firmly content that faith and repentance are actually similar things. Of course, we can also repent piecemeal. We sin, we apologise, we sin again, and apparently we can do that 7 times in a day and still receive forgiveness (Luke 17:4). But repentance is obviously more than saying sorry for individual sins. Repentance is a change of mind, leading to a change of behavior. It says "Christ is Lord", but with a very specific addition: "and I have offended Him". In that exact same vain, faith (in Christ), without works (which do not save) is dead. Put simply, you cannot have faith without repentance, nor repentance without faith (which I would call "worldly sorrow" on the basis of 2 Corinthians 7:10). Thus, you cannot be saved without repentance, and you cannot repent without being saved. It just doesn't work.

Finally, Sea Panda cited Titus 3:5. This one is interesting, because it is hotly debated, and indeed, is quite debatable. Since the verse both begins and ends mid-sentence, let's start at verse 4, and end at verse 7:

"But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

What you may have already noticed here is that there are no explicit or undeniable references to baptism. In fact, the word "baptism" and its variants do not appear anywhere in the entire book of Titus. So, is it possible that this verse doesn't refer to baptism at all?

Let's weigh up our options. This, again, is obviously a binary choice: Either the verse refers to baptism, or it does not. But which is more likely? Well, let's pay particular attention to the phrase "not by works of righteousness which we have done". This theme continues throughout the passage. According to His mercy, He saved us, He poured out the Holy Spirit on us abundantly, we are justified by His grace. Now, this would fit in fairly well with Sea Panda's position that God is the "primary Actor" in baptism. However, by the standard laid out in this verse, we actually need Him to be the sole Actor. By contrast, I am going to contend that water baptism is a work of righteousness we have done.

To prove this, let's turn to Matthew 3:13-15. Here, Jesus comes to John to be baptised, but John hesitates. He believes it's backwards: Jesus should be the one baptising him. But Jesus replies "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." So, Jesus submitting Himself to John's baptism is an act of righteousness on His part. If baptism is an act of righteousness when Christ does it, is it not an act of righteousness when we do it also? Yet the "washing of regeneration" is not a righteous act we have done.

Interesting side note

It's worth noting that Irenaeus is commonly quoted as saying "For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." This, especially when combined with the idea that "born again" refers to water baptism, is commonly said to prove Irenaeus believed in Pedobaptism. However, vital context is omitted. He continues to say "He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise."

This shows that the context is not about who gets baptised, but how and why Christ went through each life stage. Furthermore, it discusses why that matters for each stage. He sanctified infants by being an infant. Notice how this is actually without qualification. For every other life stage, he not only sanctifies them, but becomes an example for them. For infants, this qualification is absent (unless you count the final sentence as broadly applying).

When we take this into account, we get to ask, when was Jesus baptised? Not as an infant, who again need no example. Not as a child, in spite of being an example to them. Not even as a youth, in spite of being an example to them. Irenaeus here seems to use "old men" as shorthand for adulthood, since he skips youth, and obviously Jesus never became an old man (though ironically, Irenaeus did argue that Jesus was crucified at 50). It is the "old man" stage that Jesus was baptised in.

Thus, if we're going to use this quote to figure out what Irenaeus believed about the age of baptism, we would have to suggest he believed the best example is to wait until adulthood. 30, if we're going to apply a rigid interpretation, but even a loose interpretation would force us to suggest adulthood is the ideal.

Of course, Irenaeus is not on the level of prophet or Apostle, nor is Against Heresies on the level of Scripture, so he could have been the most explicit defender of either position, it would not require the other side to submit to his interpretation. Nevertheless, to argue that he believed in Pedobaptism is a stretch, and to argue that this proves we should do likewise is indefensible.

So we see that Titus 3:5 is unlikely a reference to water baptism. The onus, I believe, is on Pedobaptists to show otherwise. But it might be fair to go a little further. I don't have to prove it's not about water baptism, but obviously, I do have to explain what the "washing of regeneration" actually is.

It's worth noting that there are similar phrases in Scripture that no one, as far as I know, interprets as a reference to water baptism. Revelation 7:14 is the most obvious example. Here, those who have come out of the great tribulation are said to have "...washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." This is an obvious metaphor, and because it uses the blood of the Lamb, not the water, it just doesn't occur to us to think "baptism".

But perhaps a more clear reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit can be seen all the way back in Ezekiel, specifically Ezekiel 36:25-27. Here, God promises "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws." While this doesn't use the same phrase, the same imagery is clearly being used here. In both cases, the people receive some kind of "water" (which, in neither case, seems to be literal), which God Himself uses to remove their sins. You can feasibly argue that's the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, I don't think it's fair to say it's water baptism. So, at best, I can agree with Sea Panda that baptism is in view here, but the symbolic ritual in which we obediently participate is a secondary thought.

Faith as a gift

"5. Faith itself is a gift from God, not an intellectual achievement.

I would say, first of all, that this has diverted the topic from the meaning of baptism to the origins and effects of faith. The difference is fairly simple: Faith guarantees salvation, and salvation requires faith. By contrast, as we've established, water baptism neither guarantees salvation, nor is it a requirement thereof.

I'm actually going to challenge Sea Panda here: The rule I am setting forth does not require me to make even a single exception. I can even go back to the Old Testament, before water baptism was a thing, and say that salvation has always been by grace, through faith, not of works. The New Testament puts Abraham forward as an example three times (Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, James 2:23), citing Genesis 15:6 as a foundation. Thus, I do not have to say there is a single exception to my rule, with or without qualification.

By contrast, there are a myriad of exceptions to the rule that "baptism now saves you". Again, you can be saved without water baptism, and you can be water baptised without being saved. I would suggest, therefore, that the very character of God, in whom there is no shadow of turning (James 1:17) prevents the interpretation that salvation is inextricably linked to baptism. I submit, therefore, that as we serve an entirely consistent God, the more plausible view is the one that is entirely consistent. That view, due to the entire absence of necessary exceptions, is Credobaptism.

With that said, faith being a gift and an "intellectual achievement" are not mutually exclusive. And Sea Panda actually proved it. By admitting Romans 10:17 says "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God", he admits that God doesn't just look at people and randomly decide "ok, this one gets faith, >zap<". No, He uses actual mechanisms to bring about His desire for all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:1-4). Specifically, He uses the "beautiful feet" of those who carry the Gospel. "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?" (v14-15a). So, yes, faith is a gift, but it is a gift given by mechanisms to ensure it. And that is a huge problem for Sea Panda's view, because good works are also a gift of God.

By sheer coincidence, one of the last things I read in the Bible before I started writing this article is Judges 12, which is relevant to that point. In verse 3, we read "So when I saw that you would not deliver me, I took my life in my hands and crossed over against the people of Ammon; and the Lord delivered them into my hand. Why then have you come up to me this day to fight against me?”"

Notice, Jephthah recognises that God gave him the victory. Yet, he says he took his life in his own hands. So, God gifted him the victory, but Jephthah himself fought for it. We can ascribe similar logic to all good works. Aside from the fact our good works were prepared for us ahead of time so we would walk in them (Ephesians 2:10), we can do nothing without Christ (John 15:5). So, whenever we do a good work, it does not matter what that good work is, it's still a gift of God, even if it's something you do.

I'm actually somewhat torn here, because I want to address the same passage in this segment that Sea Panda will bring up in the next. Specifically, I want to point to Acts 16:30-31. Here, we read "And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”" This is the Gospel in its absolute, unqualified, bare bones form. What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. It's that simple. Sea Panda wants to add baptism here, not only for the Philippian jailer, but for his hypothetical children (aaaaaand now we can consider the gun officially jumped...). Why? Because baptism is the work of God. But if you can just slip baptism in alongside "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" because baptism is a gift of God, why can you not also slip in any amount of works? Church attendance, marital fidelity, self sacrificial charity, diligence in labor, self control, all of that. These are good works that we all know do not save, because we are saved by grace, through faith, not of works. Yet all of these good works are a gift of God.

When it comes to almost any other act of obedience, this is how even the most devout Lutheran would use that verse. When we confess Sola Fide, we recognise that any other act of obedience, while absolutely vital (for "faith without works is dead"), is not what saves. Baptism is the only exception.

Now, let's actually take a look at Ephesians 2:8-10. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

See how baptism is actually invisible in this formula? We are saved by grace, not by baptism. We are saved through faith, not through baptism. Baptism, as a work of righteousness we do, is actually all but explicitly excluded. It's interesting that Sea Panda suggests this is proof that faith is a gift, because this requires a particular interpretive lens. Let's compare two possibilities:

"For by grace you have been saved [through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God]"

"[For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,]"

See how our point of focus determines the interpretation? We can either understand "and that" as referring exclusively to faith, as those of a Reformed tradition may well do, or we can understand it as referring to the entire process of salvation by grace through faith.

Now, in theory, both are valid. As long as the general concept remains, neither interpretation compromises the Gospel itself. Both would lead us to the Biblical Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone. Though admittedly the former leads to a... Shall we say a rather strange conclusion:

As I don't want to take this article away from Pedobaptism to Soteriology, I won't go into how the grammar of the verse in Greek would seem to lend stronger support to the latter interpretation. "That not of yourselves, it is the gift of God", in my view, refers to salvation by grace, through faith. This actually makes extra sense in light of James 2:19. Here, we see that demons believe, and yet, not a single one of them can be saved. Why? Because this gift was never offered to them. They will not receive the grace, which renders the faith they have (and in greater quantities than we will in this life) utterly ineffective.

Moving on to Psalm 22:9, it's worth noting that Psalm 22 is a Messianic Psalm. Messianic Psalms are complex. They do not apply perfectly to either the author who wrote them, or the Messiah about whom He wrote. When read improperly, this leads to ascribing the wrong thing to the wrong person.

Let's give an example for each misapplication. Psalm 69 is one of the most cited Messianic Psalms in the New Testament, and yet verse 5 says "O God, You know my foolishness; And my sins are not hidden from You." This is so obviously inapplicable to Jesus that when Psalm 69:8 is cited against the Perpetual Virginity dogma, Roman Catholics cite verse 5 to deny the Psalm is even Messianic. On the flip side, Acts 13:35-37 explicitly cites Psalm 16:10 as applying to Jesus, and not to David. David saw corruption, the Messiah rose from the grave before this corruption could set in. This establishes the theological significance of the concept.

This state of affairs is no mere accident. We know that David was a prophet, foreseeing and speaking of the resurrection (Acts 2:30-31). Furthermore, "Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into." (1 Peter 1:10-12).

This is such a mind blowing detail that an entire book could probably be dedicated to it. But for our topic, it's worth noting that it does mean there are a lot of details in the Messianic Psalms that apply uniquely to Jesus, and not to us. At least, not in the most straightforward way. We can reasonably surmise that Psalm 22:9 fits this pattern.

In fact, we are required to, because Scripture does not present Christians as having been that way from birth. Rather, "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." (Ephesians 2:1-3). Prior to salvation, there is no difference between the elect and the wicked. We didn't trust God from the womb, we were all but explicitly opposed to Him.

Of course, without some weird sci-fi nonsense, there's no real way to explain it. One can hardly say that "if we had died before we were saved, we would have gone to Hell". This would require us to reject the concept of election. But Ephesians 2:1-3 indisputably shows that prior to conversion, the danger of damnation is very real. Thus, citing a Messianic Psalm to suggest babies possess faith is a stretch.

By contrast, Jesus was very unique as an infant. There was never a time in His Earthly sojourn during which He was any less than perfect. He trusted in God as a man should, because He is a man. His humanity did not diminish His divinity. Thus, Psalm 22:9 applies in a particular way to Jesus, and does not show that anyone can become Christian as an infant.

Household baptisms

"6. Household baptisms in Scripture strongly support infant inclusion.

Entire households were baptized in Acts (Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16). No exclusions are mentioned. This fits perfectly with the biblical pattern of covenant inclusion."

More accurately, I would say household baptisms believably support infant inclusion. This is why it is, without exception, the most common argument for Pedobaptism. However, it is weak support because it requires us to grant one key assumption. If we don't grant it, it becomes less believable. Specifically, we must assume that both households cited included infants.

I will argue that the very fact we require such an assumption is, itself, a problem. Not that I believe it's wrong to support a pre-existing view with a sufficiently compatible verse, but there is a rather significant difference between "this verse fits with my view" and "this verse prescribes my view". But under the principles laid forth in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, at least one prescriptive verse is necessary.

Now, I'm going to assume that Sea Panda, as a Lutheran, fully understands that Sola Scriptura is true, and that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is one of many verses that prove it. However, here's what people miss: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (Emphasis added).

This isn't an authority issue. It's a sufficiency issue. We are effectively being told that Scripture is a maximally extensive instructional guide. If a work is good, Scripture equips us for it. If we are incomplete in our walk with God without a thing, we will find that thing in Scripture. The logical flip side, then, is that if we do not find a thing in Scripture, it is not a good work. It is not enough to merely point out that households were baptised. You must prove that this included at least one infant. By contrast, we don't have to prove there wasn't. It it is even plausible that there wasn't, this argument fails to support Pedobaptism.

Interestingly, there is sufficient evidence that the households in question consisted entirely of believers. We are rather explicitly warned (by Christ's own mouth, no less) that a man's enemies will be members of his own household (Matthew 10:36). Even lacking direct hostility, mixed-faith households were so common, Paul directly addressed the issue of unbelieving spouses (1 Corinthians 7:12-16). It is unreasonable to expect that anyone would attempt to baptise their unbelieving household members, or that any unbelievers would even submit to baptism. An infant is the only member of a household that can even realistically be baptised without professing faith!

Ironically, this is further evidence for the distinction we mentioned earlier. Namely, there is an undeniable difference between an adult coming to faith and willingly submitting to baptism, and an infant who is baptised apart from faith. It has a different meaning for both parties.

Having shown that "household" neither requires, nor implies, that infants were included, we move on to significantly larger sample sizes. I'm sure you'll agree that in a crowd of approximately 3,000 people, we would expect a child or two to be present. I don't even think it's unreasonable to expect they would be mentioned. Looking at the famous "feeding of the 5,000", for example, we read "Now those who had eaten were about five thousand men, besides women and children." (Matthew 14:21, emphasis added). The lesser known "feeding of the 4,000", similarly, says "Now those who ate were four thousand men, besides women and children." (Matthew 15:38, emphasis added).

So we know that in a sufficiently large crowd, statistically there will be children present. We also know that the Bible is in the habit of mentioning them, even when our own culture forgets them. See how the verse actually says there were 5,000 men, besides the women and children, meaning the actual number is significantly higher than the 5,000 we typically acknowledge. With all of that in mind, the baptism of a crowd of 3,000 should realistically include, and mention, the baptism of children, if indeed children are to be baptised. But in Acts 2:41, we read "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them."

Side note pertaining to a strong response

When it is pointed out that 100% of confirmed baptisms in the Bible were performed on adults, Pedobaptists occasionally respond that this is largely because Christianity was still in its early stages, so 100% of converts were adults. One Roman Catholic even challenged me to ask ChatGPT if that is true. And it is. Not only is it true, it's almost convincing, and is worth mentioning. But of course, it is not bulletproof.

Ironically, this objection answers itself. Why would it matter if 100% of converts were adults? Especially if you're going to pair it with the "households" argument and suggest that converting adults also baptised their children, this objection merely amplifies the point I am making here. When women and children are present, they are typically mentioned. Thus, since men and women are the only ones ever mentioned as being baptised, either descriptively or prescriptively, we can reasonably surmise that infants weren't being baptised at the time the Bible was being written.

Now, we can grant a little leeway here: It doesn't even specify "men and women", much less "3,000 men, besides women and children". It just says "about three thousand souls". But note how it states these souls "gladly received the word". This doesn't work well with infants, who cannot even comprehend a word.

Typically, upon hearing this, this is where Pedobaptists start clutching at straws and asking "how do you know what infants believe?", and even pointing to John the Baptist leaping in his mother's womb when he heard Mary (Luke 1:41-44).

Regarding John the Baptist, I would suggest there is a reason he is the universal go-to example. In Scripture, he is entirely anomalous in this regard, likely owing to his special purpose, and even the very purpose for which we are told about his joyful leaping. I challenge Pedobaptists to find any example of any baby not specially chosen for a divine purpose showing any evidence of faith. It is easy for me to suggest John is an exception, it is not as easy for a Pedobaptist to suggest he is the rule. If he was the norm, I wouldn't even expect him to be cited. Rather, babies would be regularly leaping in wombs every Sunday! Instead, I think we can all resonate with the experience of the preacher's words being drowned out by ear-splitting screams, parents having to carry their child out of the room, and of course a full display of total depravity from slightly older children. If infants are able to hold faith, they often show no signs of it even when they reach the age of being able.

Which is probably why 100% of explicit examples of baptism in Scripture are performed on men and women. Which brings me to my second and third examples. First, in Acts 8:12, we read "But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized." When they believed, they were baptised. Believing men were clearly baptised. Believing women were clearly baptised. Babies - which are not normally credited with the ability to believe - were not clearly baptised.

I can grant two concessions here. First, while the context of Acts 8 is a multitude who heard Philip preach, it doesn't specify how big these crowds are. So it's possible there were less than 3,000 people here. Maybe not even 300. The best I can do here is suggest that a multitude is realistically larger than a household. Thus, especially if you're going to argue that "household" implies the presence of infants, you cannot consistently suggest "multitude" does not imply the presence of infants.

Second, Luke is not Matthew. So, we could chalk it up to writing style. Maybe Matthew was more prone to noting the presence of children, whereas Luke just doesn't see them as significant enough to mention. To that, I say that first, we're dealing with the same God working through different authors, to produce an instructive guide. It seems unlikely, especially with His ability to foresee these disputes, that He would specify "men and women", and omit "infants". We should, I hope, be able to at least agree that if infants should be baptised, God doesn't seem preoccupied with making it clear that they ever were.

My final example is Acts 18:8, which is especially interesting, because it concerns a household: "Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." So, Crispus believed on the Lord with all his household. That's quite explicit, and fits quite nicely with what I said earlier. When a whole household is baptised, it's likely the whole household believed. But also, "many of the Corinthians" followed this trend. That is, they believed and were baptised. Now, has any infant ever shown any evidence that they believed before they were baptised? If you can find it, that would be a gut punch to anyone rejecting Pedobaptism. But as it stands, 100% of confirmed baptisms in the first century followed a confession of faith, which infants cannot do.

Baptism and circumcision

"7. Baptism is explicitly connected to circumcision.

This is one area in which Sea Panda excels. The majority of Pedobaptists will go as far as to say Colossians 2:11-12 says baptism is "the new circumcision", or that it "replaces circumcision", whereas Sea Panda is careful with his words: "Baptism is explicitly connected to circumcision." Thus, he has presented what I believe to be the strongest version of the argument, at least as far as I've directly encountered. In spite of this, it is impossible, even for him, to coherently make the case that Colossians 2:11-12 supports Pedobaptism.

We start with the obvious fact that the two signs are not directly equivalent, nor can they be. For one thing, circumcision is an exclusively male symbol. To "circumcise" a female at any age is abusive, dangerous, and cruel. Yet, baptism is for women. We've seen examples in previous points. So it seems quite inconsistent to argue equivalence here, even adding the element of expansion. If something as significant as gender does not translate well, how can we argue something even more significant should be carried over? Especially given that we are commanded to baptise women, but are nowhere commanded to baptise infants?

But we can, of course, grant that there is a descriptive connection here. So let us ask, if we're going to carry elements of circumcision over to baptism, what else should we carry over? Go with me to Romans 4:9-12: "Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised."

Now, if you want to equate circumcision with baptism, this feels like a vital element to carry over. Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised. Furthermore, this faith was accounted to him for righteousness. And what is "this blessedness" that comes upon the uncircumcised also? Back up to verse 5 and read until 8: "But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”"

Behold, the remission of sins! So, if we're going to argue that circumcision is connected to baptism, and that Scripture presents the New Covenant as greater and more expansive than the Old, then we are utterly compelled to make the following statements:

The Sign of circumcision is descriptively connected to the sign of baptism.
The sign of baptism is a seal of the righteousness of the faith we have while still unbaptised.
That faith is accounted to us for righteousness while still unbaptised.
That faith applies to us the blessedness of a man whose lawless deeds are forgiven, whose sins are covered, and to whom the Lord will not impute sin, because the Lord has imputed righteousness to us apart from works (also described as "the remission of sins").

I cannot see any way around these conclusions. But what I can see is the full content of the verses cited. Colossians 2:11-12 doesn't just say "baptism is connected to circumcision". It says "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

The phrase "with a circumcision made without hands" is very significant. Biblically, this phrase contrasts physical types with Heavenly antitypes. Take, for example, Acts 7:47-48, where we read "But it was Solomon who built a house for him. Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,". Similarly, "...we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." (2 Corinthians 5:1).

The sign of circumcision - that is, the physical removal of the foreskin from the penis - is most assuredly a circumcision made with hands. Infants were not placed on an alter to await the miraculous removal of excess flesh. The person doing the circumcising put his hands in all the necessary places to get the job done.

Because that is a logical argument, I could feasibly leave it there, but I don't have to. We have Scriptural precedent for asserting that circumcision is done with hands. In Ephesians 2:11-12, Paul says "Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." (Emphasis added). So, "the Circumcision" is made in the flesh by hands, and is contrasted with "Uncircumcision", which is shorthand for Gentiles.

Which, interestingly enough, provides evidence that Paul's primary audience in Colossians is at least partially Gentile. In verse 13, literally one verse after the one we are addressing, he says "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh,...". This makes it especially interesting, then, that verse 11 says "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands". There is sufficient evidence that Paul is addressing Gentiles, either in whole or in part. Gentiles, of course, were rarely circumcised with hands, if ever. Even if we wish to discount this possibility, it cannot be denied that his primary audience (not to mention his secondary audience, namely us) are New Covenant believers, who are not required to be circumcised with hands. So, when he says "you were circumcised", he cannot be referring to the physical sign of circumcision.

This leaves us with spiritual circumcision, and by extension, spiritual baptism. Both of these are done by God, not by us. Thus, it cannot be reasonably used to support, much less prescribe, the practice of baptising our infants with hands.

Early adoption of the tradition

"8. The early church practiced infant baptism extremely early.

With the exception of the first point, which, as I said, genuinely surprised me, this is possibly my favorite aspect of Sea Panda's post. It does border on a cliche, but it's the strongest version of the cliche. Furthermore, Sea Panda's skill cannot be denied, because he shows adaptability on a scale I have never seen from a Pedobaptist.

See, in my original comment on Sea Panda's original post, I said "As Tertullian said, "let them become Christians when they can know Christ". By the way, as far as history goes, that's the earliest reference to pedobaptism. The first POSITIVE reference is Origen, a condemned heretic. That's quite the gap between the closing of Scripture and the popularity of pedobaptism."

This argument shows a significant gap between the closing of the Apostolic age and the integration of Pedobaptism. In the grand scheme of things, the gap seems quite small. Small enough for Sea Panda to call it "extremely early". But when we consider that the faith was "...once for all delivered to the saints" in the first century (Jude 1:3), for the earliest positive reference to Pedobaptism to be as late as the third century is devastating.

For the earliest reference to be Origen is even worse. Not that Origen was a joke, of course, but his reliability is justifiably questioned. In fact, while he can be cited precedentially (i.e. "see, my views weren't invented by Martin Luther after all"), almost no one would cite him as an actual authority. See, first and foremost, he is a condemned heretic. I do not mean this in the sense that I believe he is in Hell (and I actually take the term "heretic" in a less rigid manner than most people do). I mean he was literally condemned as a heretic by the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.). In other words, if you want to take history seriously, you have to take Origen's words with a pinch of salt.

Which, of course, everyone does. In fact, as a Lutheran, Sea Panda must say that Origen was wrong about his other favorite sacrament: The Eucharist. See, Origen believed "We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist." (3). If Sea Panda can reject Origen's view that the Eucharist is a symbol, I can reject his view that Pedobaptism goes back to the Apostles on the same grounds.

As far as Origen goes, most Pedobaptists tend to defend his authority on this one issue. "Just because he was a heretic doesn't mean he was wrong". "He said it's Apostolic tradition, where did he get that idea?" "Sure, he's the earliest to support it, but he's the first in a long line of unanimous assent". And unfortunately, that tends to be where the discussion stagnates. But rather than attempt to bolster the first positive reference to Pedobaptism, Sea Panda opts for flipping the first negative reference.

Prior to Tertullian, there are no extant references to Pedobaptism. Sea Panda does cite Irenaeus, but I suspect he is referring to the quote I dealt with in the side note of an earlier segment. Suffice to say, whether or not that is the quote Sea Panda is referring to, Irenaeus never prescribed, mentioned, or necessarily implied Pedobaptism, leaving Tertullian as the earliest known reference. He said:

"According to the circumstances and nature, and also age, of each person, the delay of baptism is more suitable, especially in the case of small children. What is the necessity, if there is no such necessity, for the sponsors as well to be brought into danger, since they may fail to keep their promises by reason of death or be deceived by an evil disposition which grows up in the child? The Lord indeed says, “Do not forbid them to come to me.” Let them “come” then while they are growing up, while they are learning, while they are instructed why they are coming. Let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. In what respect does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? Should we act more cautiously in worldly matters, so that divine things are given to those to whom earthly property is not given? Let them learn to ask for salvation so that you may be seen to have given “to him who asks.”" (4).

From this, we see that Pedobaptism had not yet become universal practice. More than a hundred years had passed since the absolute latest estimation for the last Scripture to have been written. Tertullian wrote from the very dawn of a new century, yet still, Pedobaptism had yet to win the dominance it would later come to hold. Moreover, Tertullian is not merely earlier than Origen, but also more reliable. If, as Origen asserted, Pedobaptism could be traced to the Apostles, Tertullian would assuredly have known it. At the very least, it seems absurd to believe that Tertullian would have pulled his views from thin air, or that he would have been alone in holding them.

Furthermore, notice how he addresses a common Pedobaptist argument (and I was pleasantly surprised to see Sea Panda did not make it). Namely, the delay of baptism is said to be somehow excluding children from the New Covenant. This common straw man persists to this very day. We are not preventing children from coming to Christ in any meaningful way. I would even argue that if a child is so dedicated to faith as to request baptism, our response should be "“If you believe with all your heart, you may.”" (Acts 8:37).

Pretty big side note...

It's worth noting that Acts 8:37 is textually questionable. It is not found in the earliest manuscript evidence, and even in Western texts that do contain it, it is often found in the margins. It does appear in Reformation era translations, such as the KJV, and even Luther's own translation contains it. However, it is not likely original to Scripture.

Because it may not actually be Scripture, it is significantly easier to dismiss, and if it was the only Bible verse supportive of Credobaptism, the entire position would become equal to Pedobaptism.

With that said, there are two things to consider. The first is that "questionable" does not mean ahistorical. Even if not original, it was absorbed into Western tradition one way or another, and of course it is quite compatible with other Scriptures on the matter. Even when removed, verse 36 does show the eunuch request baptism (implying he had come to faith), and verse 38 shows Philip administering the sacrament, which it can be reasonably assumed he did not consent to silently.

Second, the level of authenticity you ascribe to it is utterly ineffective to how much trouble it causes for Pedobaptists. If it's authentic, it's devastating, because it is so clearly supportive of the Credobaptist position that it would be singlehandedly sufficient to prove it. This, by the way, would provide motive for Pedobaptists (i.e. the dominant force throughout the majority of history) to attempt to expunge it. I'm not saying that's what happened, and it would be quite conspiratorial to do so, but if it is authentic, that's more than likely why it "conveniently" disappeared (and God's divine protection of His word would explain why it survived in spite of the effort).

By contrast, if inauthentic, it didn't just spring out of nowhere. Even if we want to go full conspiracy mode and say some sneaky Credobaptist group managed to trick the entire Western Church into accepting a Credobaptist verse as authentic, until modern textual critics spotted it, what does that prove? It proves that there was at least one sufficiently influential Credobaptist operating way back as early as the 6th century.

In both scenarios, Acts 8:37 is weak evidence of Credobaptism, but is sufficiently compatible with it as to be worth mentioning. It also fits nicely with the rest of the Biblical data on baptism. Furthermore, in the case above, I wasn't technically even using it as evidence for Credobaptism, but as the appropriate response to a child (or indeed anyone) seeking baptism in good faith.

However, this one concession must be granted to Sea Panda: Tertullian's opposition to Pedobaptism does strongly imply it was already being practiced. In other words, while Tertullian is the earliest known reference to the practice, the practice is earlier than is known by reference to it.

Here's the problem with that: Baptism for the dead is even older. In 1 Corinthians 15:29, we read "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?" This is no mere Church "Father". This is not a man speaking a century or two after the fact. This isn't even a bishop who sat at the feet of a disciple. This is Paul, a hand-selected Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, writing as he was moved to write by the Holy Spirit Himself. Here, he not only references a very strange baptismal practice, but does so in an entirely neutral manner. He is not prescribing it, but he is not condemning it either. Rather, he highlights the implications to support his main point. This not only means baptism for the dead was a sufficiently common practice as to warrant a mention (which is more than can be said for baptising infants), but it wasn't even significantly erroneous as to merit a rebuke (which is why I do not consider Pedobaptism heretical).

Now, to my knowledge, Sea Panda does not support baptism for the dead. In fact, this first century tradition seems to be all but extinct. Catholics do not practice it. The Orthodox do not practice it. Lutherans do not practice it. To my knowledge, there are no denominations that do. Except one. Namely, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly known as Mormons.

Now, obviously, Mormonism is not Christian. It is a henotheistic, merit-mongering, blasphemous, American-centric, knock-off, sci-fi fan fiction cult that almost makes the Catholic Church look Biblical. Mormons retain both the historical tradition of baptism for the dead and Pedobaptism, yet there is no way so faithful a brother as Sea Panda would ever look at Mormonism and think "you know actually, I think that might be the Church for me." Yet, they're the only ones who practice baptism for the dead.

So, clearly, "it was practiced" is not equivalent to "it should be practiced". If it did, Christianity died in the first century, and rather than joining the Lutheran denomination, Sea Panda should have started his own. Establishing Pedobaptism requires Biblical precedent, not mere historical precedent.

Historical consensus

"9. The historic Christian consensus overwhelmingly affirms infant baptism.

Allow me to correct this point with a quote from one of my favorite Facebook theologians: "Tertullian objected to infant baptism around AD 200, which proves it already existed."

- Concordia Sea Panda 😉

I wish I could see his face as he read that, because I strongly suspect he'll be laughing almost as much as I did when I wrote it. It is, of course, contradictory to say that the rejection of infant baptism appears much later historically immediately after making a point about how the early rejection of it proves the early existence of it. As far as origins go, the best you can say is that historical evidence shows Pedobaptism and Credobaptism co-existed as early as the second century.

It is true, however, that, after the second century, Pedobaptism won the popularity contest. The problem here is that truth is not determined by historicity, but by the word of God. This is the very logic that allows us to dismiss the Catholic Church when they use the exact same "for the first 1500 years" argument against "Protestantism". First, it's just not true, we've already seen that the first and second centuries lacked this consensus. Second, if Pedobaptism was true, you wouldn't need to appeal to the first 15 centuries, you would only need to appeal to the first.

In fact, let us imagine, for one moment, Pedobaptism did not enjoy approximately 1300 years of dominance. Suppose Tertullian's influence was significantly larger on this issue, and right up until the Reformation, the Church was evenly divided. On the one hand, Pedobaptists continued baptising their infants just as they have in our reality. On the other side, Credobaptists, offering baptism to all who receive it by faith, but not under compulsion. This would essentially remove the argument from historical consensus, and force us, as we should, to rely entirely on Scripture.

To Sea Panda's credit, he did remarkably well in this regard. Generally speaking, the historical argument is favored where the Biblical argument is weak. Sea Panda, rather than primarily or solely relying on the historical argument, waited a full 7 points to finally bring it in. But if that argument is taken away, how well does Pedobaptism fare? That is, if we rely 100% on the word of God, which is for instruction and training in righteousness in order to fully equip us for every good work, will we be instructed or trained to do the work of baptising our infants?

The real question

"10. The irony is this: infant baptism reflects a higher view of baptism, not a lower one.

The real question is simple:

Is baptism meaningful because of what we do, or because of what God does?

Historic Christianity has consistently answered: because of what God does."

As point 10 is mainly a summary of previous points, it feels unnecessary to respond to it, other than to prevent the possible "but what about point 10?" complaints if I don't. But there is a slight difference here in that Sea Panda presents what he believes is "the real question", and what he believes "historic Christianity has consistently answered"?

So, I'm going to suggest the real question isn't actually simple, because the issue is not so simple as to be reduced to one question. If we could, I don't think it would be "is baptism meaningful because of...", but rather, what is the meaning of baptism? And to discover that meaning, we don't go to "historic" Christianity, which is riddled with errors, debates, and obscure traditions that have been forgotten by all but a minority. We go to the infallible, sufficient, Holy word of the Living God.

I believe I have made a solid case that Pedobaptism is not among the answers we can draw from it, though ironically I have also made an incomplete case. This article is purely responsive, and so I have only shared what is necessary for a worthy response. But after writing all of this, I believe I can summarise the matter in one very simple challenge. One which I have previously posed in a much shorter article: Can you find one clear and authentic example of one Apostle baptising, or commanding to baptise, one infant?

If this cannot be found, then the link between historic Christianity as it was delivered by the Apostles and historic Christianity as it was interpreted in later centuries has been irreparably shattered. If it can be found, then I vow at this very moment, even before I hit the publish button, that if the Lord ever blesses me with children, I will personally guarantee each and every one of them is baptised. Furthermore, I will edit this article with a prominent "I was wrong" button, which will link to a whole new article explaining why. From that very day, I will become as passionate a defender of Pedobaptism as I was Credobaptism.

Luther's response

"This is why Luther spoke of baptism not merely as something in the past, but as an ongoing present reality. He taught that the Christian life is a “daily baptism,” a continual drowning of the old sinner and rising of the new man. He even encouraged Christians to remember their baptism during ordinary washing, not because the act itself had power, but because water reminds us of God’s promise. Luther reportedly cried out “I am baptized!” during times of despair or spiritual attack. Not “I chose,” not “I decided,” but “I am baptized.” His confidence rested not in his past decision, but in God’s past and present action. Baptism, in this view, is not a fragile human offering to God. It is a permanent divine claim on you. God has claimed you. Your sins are forgiven. And that promise does not weaken with time. It remains your entire life."

Personally, I think this is a beautiful conclusion, and I was tempted to leave it as is. I obviously do not believe Luther is authoritative, but I do believe he had a lot to teach us, with the obvious caveat that he must be filtered through Scripture. In this case, his view was truly inspiring. And this, I can say, is indisputably a high view of baptism. He recognises the promises of God, and he claims them with true, child-like faith.

But there is an inconsistency in Sea Panda's view here. We both believe salvation is the work of God, yet Sea Panda believes baptism is also the work of God. When God does a work, nothing can undo it. When God makes a promise, nothing can revoke it. What God holds cannot be taken from His hand. His very strength is made perfect in our weakness. How is it, then, if baptism is a work of God, a permanent divine claim that does not weaken with time and remains for the duration of your life, that there are so many for whom it does weaken, if indeed it was ever strong? For a symbol, this makes sense. For a work of God, it does not.

Conclusion

In this rather lengthy article, we have seen competition between two different theses. We have seen Sea Panda's view that Pedobaptism is not a low view of baptism, but a high view. Owing to the ambiguity of terms, I have retracted my own claim that it is a low view, and have instead defended the Thesis that Credobaptism, not Pedobaptism, is the Biblical view.

Sea Panda is, without exception, equal, or rival, the most competent opponent I have ever debated on this topic. He defied stereotypes, he resisted cliches, and most importantly, he showed Christ-like humility throughout. His love of Scripture cannot be denied, and he presented the strongest form of almost every argument he used. Even when resorting to the historical argument, he did it in the way it is supposed to be done: Supplementary. I have truly enjoyed discussing this issue with him, and it is my hope that even if I fail to change his mind, even if I fail to convince a single person, even if a Credobaptist actually jumps ship with this article as the catalyst, we will have demonstrated the correct spirit, and showed our fellow Christians how debates should be conducted. The toxicity so commonly seen in this regard must end, for sake of our Lord, who purchased us by His very own blood. With that, I yield my time, and say God bless all of my readers, in Jesus' Holy name, amen.

References

1. Elicott, C. J. - Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers, Vol. 8, Cassell & Company, 1897 (link).

2. Grudem, Wayne - Systenatic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Inter-Vasity Press, 1994

3. Origen of Alexandria - Against Celsus, book 8, chapter 57, circa 248 A.D.

4. Tertullian - On Baptism, Chapter 18, circa 200 A.D.

AI usage

1. The header image was created using ChatGPT, and edited using Grok.

2. This image was generated by ChatGPT.

We are the simple the

Psalmist talks about!