When and How Should Kids Be Baptized?

When and how should children be baptized? What does baptism mean? And what does the Bible teach?

In this episode we explore an important moment parents face: When and how should my child be baptized? Rather than beginning with church tradition, we begin with Scripture—tracing the story of baptism from the Old Testament through the intertestamental period and into the New Testament.

We discuss:

•  What baptism is and why Jesus commanded it 
•  The biblical purpose and meaning of baptism 
•  The Old Testament and Jewish background that prepares us for baptism 
•  When and how baptism should be practiced 
•  The historical development of Catholic, Reformation, and Baptist views of baptism 
•  Why I believe Scripture points to believer's baptism 

Whether you're considering baptism for yourself, your child, or simply want to understand the biblical and historical foundations of baptism, this episode is designed to help you think carefully and faithfully about this important expression of following Christ.

Transcript

Copy

SPEAKER_00 0:06

If I could do all this in one take, it would be awesome. Baptism raises a lot of questions, not just for children, but for many parents as well. So, what is baptism? Why do Christians get baptized? And how and when should it be done? As a pastor of children and families, I have a lot of parents asking me about baptism. So this episode is to help them and you think deeply. So we can immerse ourselves, so to speak. No, we need to get rid of that. Just get rid of this. Let's start again. Baptism raises a lot of questions, not just for children, but for many parents as well. So, what is baptism? Why do Christians get baptized? And how and when should it be done? In the New Testament, we first encounter baptism in the Gospel accounts through John the Baptist, who is baptizing people in the Jordan River. But was it normal at this point in time for people to go to a body of water and get immersed underneath? Or was this totally unique? Well, yes and no. Before we dive into understanding baptism as seen in the New Testament, let's first see if there's anything in the Old Testament, as well as the time period between when the events of the Old and New Testaments took place that can help us understand baptism. Even prior to John the Baptist, immersion in water, that is being completely surrounded by water, was a powerful and frequently used symbol in ancient Judaism for physical and ritual cleansing. Speaking of the Jordan River, consider the story of Naaman, the military commander who had a skin disease in 2 Kings chapter 5. He came to the prophet Elisha, who commanded him to wash seven times in the Jordan River. When he dunked himself seven times in the river, he came up with smooth and even improved flesh. Apart from the Jordan River, water for ritual cleansing was important. As early as Leviticus chapter 8, verse 6, Aaron and his sons had to wash their bodies to purify themselves from any defilement, and in certain situations, non-priestly Israelites had to bathe if they experienced any ritual uncleanness. For the time period between when the events of the Old and New Testaments took place, there had developed different Jewish groups like the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes, who had different views of the scriptures and practices. For the Pharisees, water and immersion in water functioned as the primary means by which ritual impurity was removed. Just outside of the city of Jerusalem, in the desert near the Dead Sea, there was a community who lived at Qumran. We think these people were both the riders of the Dead Sea Scrolls and more than likely Essenes. For them, baptism had additional value than just ritual purity, and it was also a symbolic act by which one was made holy by the waters of repentance. Some of these Jewish groups also began to practice conversion baptism, which was a rite that required converts to undergo immersion in a ritual bath. For males, this would have been in addition to circumcision. As it regarded the temple in Jerusalem, in order for any Jew to enter the temple or participate in temple services, during things like major festivals, all Jews had to preserve a state of ritual purity. And the large number of Jewish ritual baths, or mikvayot, the singular being a mikveh, they've been excavated in Jerusalem, Jericho, and elsewhere, and also in Qumran, like I mentioned earlier. By rabbinical law, these had to hold at least 60 gallons of water and be deep enough to completely immerse the body. And when my wife and I traveled to modern Israel in 2015, we were able to see many of these ancient mikvayot. Some were massive and had stairs on both sides of it. As was explained to us by an archaeologist in Qumran, an individual would walk down one set of stairs into the mikvah unclean and would then walk out the other set of stairs clean. We know that the participants were fully immersed in the water because of the sheer size of the mikveyot, which were which were meant to submerge a whole person. Take a drink break. So when Jews were coming to John the Baptist, the concept of being immersed under water for cleansing, it wasn't a new concept. But I think for Jews in general, and there were exceptions like those at Qumran, to be immersed for repentance of sins rather than ritual purity was a different concept. Our word baptism is not actually a Hebrew word, but instead comes from the Greek verb baptizo. Our word baptism is not a Hebrew word, but instead comes from the Greek verb baptizo, which means to plunge or dip something in liquid. It was a common word that often shows up for dipping a container in a liquid to draw it up, or when dipping material into a dye in order to change its color. And even though our English word baptism does not come from the Hebrew, in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, baptizo often translates the Hebrew to vol, that also has the simple meaning of dip. So when Jews were coming to John the Baptist, the concept of being immersed under water for cleansing wasn't a new concept. But I think for Jews in general, and there were exceptions like those at Qumran, to be immersed for repentance of sins rather than ritual purity was a different concept. So let's now move into the New Testament, which presents the baptism of John the Baptist as the necessary precursor to the public ministry of Jesus, who was himself baptized by John in the Jordan River. John the Baptist protested, saying he should be baptized by Jesus, but Jesus said, Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. In Matthew chapter 3, verse 15. While Jesus didn't have individual sin in which to repent of, by being baptized, he does identify with God's people rather than distancing himself from them and provides an example for us to follow. Jesus does not ask us to do anything that he himself is not willing to do. In a way, his symbolic water baptism was a foreshadowing of his physical death and resurrection, and the spiritual death and resurrection his followers would experience when baptized by the Holy Spirit. Even as John the Baptized prophesied, Jesus would come to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. So water baptism and spirit baptism are different, but they correlate with one another. Water baptism does not save a person, but is an external and public witness to a believer's internal reception of the Holy Spirit, which should radically change a person over time as if they were brought from death to life. So when does the Spirit baptism occur? Well, one is sealed with the Holy Spirit simultaneously when they believe in Jesus, as is seen in Ephesians chapter 1, verse 13. It is only by being born again by the Spirit, as described in John chapter 3, verses 1 through 5, that one is saved. Therefore, the baptism of water is again an external and public witness to that person's internal and intimate baptism of the Holy Spirit that should have already occurred when they believe in Jesus Christ. That means water baptism is symbolic, not salvific. It's a symbol of your salvation, but not the thing that saves you. So you and your children are saved by faith in Jesus, who sends you the Holy Spirit. So does that mean you don't have to be baptized? Well, Jesus was baptized. He also included baptism as an important part of discipleship in the Great Commission of Matthew 28, requiring his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. So you don't have to be baptized to be saved, but given what the scriptures say about baptism, why would an obedient follower of Jesus not want to be baptized? And there are brothers and sisters in Christ and parts of the world that to be baptized will bring a lot of hostility and even violence. But again, the scriptural commands are clear that one of the ways obedient followers of Jesus publicly display their faith and commitment to him is through baptism. As seen in Romans 6 and Colossians chapter 2, verse 12, baptism is an act in which the believer identifies with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Since water baptism is an act of will and public repentance, a candidate for baptism must give personal consent and have personal knowledge of the truth of Jesus Christ. As it regards personal consent, as we see in Ephesians chapter 1, verse 13, Paul says, In him, in Jesus, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation, having also believed, you were sealed in him with the Holy Spirit of promise. You see, a believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit through the church's preaching and teaching of the word. It's hearing God's word that brings about conversion. This means the church cannot force conversion or stimulate grace through water baptism. What we see throughout the New Testament are persons hearing the gospel, repenting of sin, and then promptly being baptized. For example, after Peter preached to the crowds on Pentecost in Acts 2, the text says in Acts 2, verse 37, Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said to them, Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. So then those who had received his word were baptized, and that day they were added about three thousand souls. Or another example is when Philip encountered the Ethiopian who needed help understanding the Isaiah scroll that he had in Acts chapter eight. After Philip shared the good news of Jesus with him, the man believed and was baptized. If the scriptural and archaeological evidence points to adults being fully immersed in water for baptism, then why is sprinkling infants with water a widely practiced and accepted form of baptism today in some Christian denominations? For scriptural defense of infant baptism, some might point to the book of Acts, where whole households were baptized, and you could assume that this would include infants, specifically in Acts chapter 16, verses 33 through 34. And he, the jailer, took them, Paul and Silas, the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds. And he bap and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Let's do that again. For scriptural defense of infant baptism, some might point to the book of Acts, where whole households were baptized, and you could assume that this would include infants. Specifically in Acts chapter 16, verses 33 through 34, and it says, And he the jailer took them, Paul and Silas, the same hour of the night and washed their wounds. And he was baptized at once, he and all his family. So let's say the household does include infants. The text continues in verse 34, then he brought them up into his house and set food before them, and he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. This word rejoice, while it does describe a state of great joy and gladness, which I guess could include an infant, even if they don't understand what's going on, this word also often involves verbal expression, which doesn't have an infant babbling in view. So if it is the case that infants are included in this passage, it's very vague at best. Historically, infant baptism or pedobaptism as a practice isn't documented before the third century or from 200 to 300 AD. So let's look at the early church. In fact, in the first few centuries of the church, many baptisms were postponed until late adulthood, because baptism began to be viewed as the actual means of cleansing sins. So many waited then with the idea being that if baptism cleansed all your sins, the longer you wait, the more sins you can clear. Even the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine, wasn't baptized until he was on his deathbed in 337, because the thought was, again, that there would be no more sinning after one died. However, we can guess infant baptism was beginning because men like Tertullian of Carthage, who lived in the late 2nd and into the third century, taught that the delay of baptism is more useful, especially in the case of small children. He stressed that they should become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Tertullian wouldn't have needed to teach on that specifically if it wasn't a question that was being raised. But infant baptism noticeably changed by the 5th century or the 400s, especially in the Roman Catholic West under Augustine of Hippo's influence. In advocating for infant baptism, Augustine said he was not inventing any new doctrine, but preserving the firmly established faith of the Church. However, even Augustine, who was born to and raised by a Christian mother, was not baptized until age 33. So if infant baptism was becoming a common practice, still not all Christian parents followed it. The reason Augustine advocated for infant baptism came from his debates against another theologian named Pelagius. The debate was around trying to understand how Adam's original sin affects all people, as seen in Romans 5. And this is a topic I talk about a little bit more in an earlier episode, Are Kids Born Sinful? And in trying to impact Paul's theology in Romans, Augustine argued that Adam's sin has a corporate effect on all people, because all people were in Adam when he sinned. The idea being that we all have sinned in Adam because Adam is our covenant or federal head, meaning that all sinned in Adam because he represents us all. This means children are born sinners and spiritually dead because of Adam's sin. They will remain under sin and spiritually dead until they are born again by their faith in Jesus. But what happens then if a child dies before they are born again? Well, according to Augustine, even though he did not think an infant was on the same sinful level as a fully developed adult, they were still condemned. He believed all who are baptized were baptized into Christ's salvic death. So it would be cruel to exclude infants from baptism. They too needed access to baptism for the forgiveness of sins. And as I discussed in the episode, Are Kids Born Sinful? I disagree with Augustine on this point, because I think we have scriptural evidence that children are not held accountable for their sin until an age of accountability. So, while I do agree that they are born sinful, they can still wait to be baptized until they can profess faith in Christ. Mainly because of Augustine and other medieval theologians, infant baptism became the normal practice for the Western Church. And it wasn't until the Reformation period in the 15th, 16th centuries, that infant baptism was noticeably challenged, but not by men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who were massive figures of the Reformation period. Many Protestant denominations, including Lutherans, you know, they held a similar view, not the same, but similar view as Roman Catholics, in that infant baptism is sacramental, meaning it is an act that conveys grace to the recipient. And even though Luther championed that we are saved by faith alone, he supported infant baptism because it was an opportunity to welcome children into the covenant community, and he argued, infant baptism has the ability to awaken faith within the infant. However, their salvation wasn't secure unless their awakened faith was oriented towards the gospel throughout their life. John Calvin viewed infant baptism similar to circumcision in the Old Testament, in that baptism was a sign that physically confirmed a child's place within the faith community and as a recipient of God's covenant promises. And since they are already elected children into God's covenant promises, they should not be denied baptism as the sign. So while Luther supported infant baptism so that children could be welcomed into the covenant community and faith awakened, John Calvin supported infant baptism because elect children were already members of the covenant community. And so while Luther and Calvin's arguments are interesting, there are no New Testament scriptures that link baptism to an awakening of faith within the recipient, or that circumcision and baptism are similar signs of covenant membership. In fact, Jesus only ties communion as a symbolic act that explicitly unites a symbolic act with covenant language, not baptism. Perhaps a major driving force behind many reformers' defense for infant baptism during the Reformation period was the perceived impossible task of untangling infant baptism with state administration. What do I mean by this? Well, while the majority of Protestants disagreed strongly with the Roman Catholic Church over issues like the nature of salvation and the question of religious authority, both groups agreed that the state had a vital role to play in the life of the church. Most 16th century Protestants could not envision a world where church and state were separated and were not working together for the cause of Christ. However, a small number of individuals refused to identify themselves with this way. These men and women, by and large, rejected the idea of a national church, to which every individual in the state belonged, along with its support of infant baptism. Instead, they advocated churches composed solely of believers who were admitted on the basis of a personal confession of faith and believers' baptism. In the early days of the Reformation, this small group of Protestants, they would have been baptized as infants. When they were baptized as believers, their opponents, both Roman Catholic and Protestants, dubbed them re-baptizers or Anabaptists. For these early Anabaptist believers, uh, excuse me, let me say that again. For these early Anabaptist, let me say that again. For these early Anabaptists, believers' baptism was the doorway to a life of ongoing transformation as they sought to live as disciples of Christ in community with like-minded believers. By and large, these Anabaptists shared the conviction with Luther and Calvin that faith alone makes us righteous before God. Sadly, because these early Anabaptists rejected infant baptism, as well as the union of church and state that was assumed by the majority of professing Christians in Western Europe, their communities were regarded as a dire threat to the stability and security of the state. They were seen as anarchist. For Americans, it's hard for us to imagine why these Anabaptists were enemies of the state. Well, here's a quick example that helps. We don't know when William Shakespeare was born. We can guess it was probably April 23rd, 1564. But this is not because there was a hospital record that submitted to the state an official birth record, which would then initiate the state to produce a social security number, thereby confirming and identifying that child as a citizen by birth of that nation. No, it didn't work like that. Instead, we can guess Shakespeare was born on April 23rd, because the earliest record we have is his baptismal date recorded by the church at Stratford upon Avon on April 26th. And it was according to the Book of Common Prayer in 1559 that it was recommended that infants should be baptized on the next Sunday or holy day following their birth. So the paperwork that confirmed an individual's birthplace and family was their baptismal record. In England, the monarchy was head of the church as well as the state. So if you get rid of an infant baptism and thereby baptismal records, you are removing one of the ways in which the crown can track and confirm subjects. If one has to be born again into a state religion rather than just being born into the state religion, then the ruling authorities have an issue on their hands. Today, groups that best preserve the traditional Anabaptist movements are communities like the Mennonites and Amish. Current-day Baptists like myself, they stem from Puritans from the 16th century. However, the regained practice of a believer's baptism. However, what's similar is the regained practice of a believer's baptism. So in conclusion, I practice a believer's baptism because I feel that the practices of a full immersion is best in keeping in what it means to be baptized and the practices held by God's people. I also think that baptism being reserved for individuals old enough to profess faith in Christ has the most biblical and historical evidence and is theologically supported by Scripture. So if your child is expressing an interest in being baptized, praise the Lord. That is from the Holy Spirit prompting them to publicly identify with Christ and become an obedient disciple.