Baptist “Reasoning” on Babies Not Being Baptized

Baptist reasoning

A man who belongs to Christ


A woman who belongs to Christ


Have a baby.

This baby though, belonging to the man and woman who belong to Christ, should not be thought of as one upon whom Christ has a claim of ownership and so should not be baptized.


The baby is old enough to claim that Christ is owned by him.

So … claims of belonging and ownership moves from the divine to the human.

And yet, the parents do not wait before being responsible for the child until the child asks the parents into their lives.

Tom Wolfson responds,

Repentance and faith are evidence of election, more so than the parents being saved, unless you contend that no saved couple ever gave birth to a reprobate.

Bret responds

I contend that the recidivism rate for adults baptized by Baptists is likely worse than the recidivism rate for Reformed babies baptized in keeping with God’s command and promises. As such man’s claim of “repentance and faith” is no better evidence of election than the waters of Baptism. Indeed, they are worse evidence since faith and repentance are about man’s claim on God while Baptism is about God’s claim on man.

So the point is that Baptists baptizing adults no more ensures that the baptized will be saved in the end than Reformed baptizing babies ensures that same.

As such the argument that avowed repentance and faith of those baptized as adults by Baptists are proof positive of evidence of election is indeed not true.

Besides, who said Babies can’t have faith?

But You are He who took Me out of the womb; You made Me trust while on My mother’s breasts. Psalm 22:9

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

2 thoughts on “Baptist “Reasoning” on Babies Not Being Baptized”

  1. To always grieves me that Baptists would rather trust the testimony of a frail man rather than the testimony of the God Himself.

    “Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” 1 Corinthians 7:14b.

    “Are holy”, not “might be”, or “in the future might prove to be holy”.

  2. Another great blog article, but then they are all good.

    As a Pentecostal, whom used to accept the idea that a personal decision is valid, it only applies to those who were not established in the Christian faith but came to Christ as an adult.
    Sadly I did not know any better when we had our children, but rather followed the idea that we dont baptize infants, but rather using Hannah’s example in dedicating Samuel to God. What a misunderstanding.

    I now know better in that I understand Covenant and see Hannah’s example of dedicating the first-born fruit of her womb was not a sign of covenant but rather a dedication where the first fruits belonged, is dedicated to teh Lord. After all Samuel was circumcized on the eighth day. The baptising of infants whose parents are not christian does not make the child christian, BUT the baptizing of babes whose parents are TRUE Christians is in actually declaring this child belongs to the God I am in covenant with. So when a parent or parents who are not in covenant with God ask to baptize their child, we have lost one of the greatest evangelistic opportunities available to us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.