These are some very good points. However, there is a rather unsettling absence of Scripture in these 9 points. They are all very consistent with Scriptural principles, but I think you would be hard pressed to prove this conclusion from NT examples of baptism. Does this really match up with what we see there?

I can't go into why I disagree with your post because I don't have the time but some questions that come to mind are: Do you believe in the power of the Holy Spirit? Are you basing your convictions on feelings or Scripture? Do you truly think it's wise to make children "prove" their Christianity for that long? Could you have been a little more humble? I'm actually surprised 9 Marks posted this.

Very interesting post Mike. I like much of what you have to say, although I disagree with some of your broad-stroke assumptions. First, children can be regenerate, thus ought to be baptized. Second, baptism is a profession. It is not a mark of perseverance. The church withholds the Lord's Supper from those who lack perseverance. Third, regenerate children become spiritual members of the church whether or not we have structurally put them on our roles and under our care. The church can still exercise church through the head of the household, we have done this with teenagers and it works beautifully. Finally, church business practice ought not determine how we conduct the ordinances. Obviously, any autonomous local church can put a limit on the age at which a child can participate in church matters. This has no bearing on whether or not a child ought to be able to profess their faith through baptism. I am staunchly baptist, but I believe you have tied the ordinance too strictly with the details of church life, On the other hand, this whole situation changes if a church is practicing dubious methods of child evangelism. I am assuming a proper understanding of regeneration.

Hi Jasper,
thanks fo rhe rebuke about humility and Scripture.
I was trying to be provocative, but hadn't intended to be rude or arrogant. Though, rereading after your comments I can see how it might come across that way, so I'm revising it.

I think you are assuming some conclusions that the original article did not. The article wasn't saying that we should draw no lines whatsoever when it comes to small children and baptism. For instance, I seriously doubt the author intended to make two year olds the subjects of baptism. He simply made the point that when a child can give a believable profession of faith (admittedly a difficult, but not impossible, thing to discern), we have no biblical grounds to deny him or her the sign of the covenant (or else we could become complicit in their disobedience to the Lord’s command). As far as membership expectations, I'm not sure that I would limit baptism only to those who can participate fully in all church membership responsibilities. I think there is wisdom in restricting some membership rights to the more mature (voting, voicing opinions at members’ meetings, etc), just as children in the home have age-appropriate privileges. I even think we might apply church discipline in a somewhat different manner with children and teenagers, since parents are included in the equation (as one of the other commenters mentioned). You might reply that this too is an extra-biblical distinction. But the question before us seems to be this: which extra-biblical category are we more willing to live with—an unbaptized believer or a church member with age-appropriate membership privileges?

I was baptized at 6 (@ an SBC church), and I'm now a full-fledged paedobaptist. One of the reasons for this is I didn't see much of a difference between the two practices (baptizing at 6 and baptizing a 2 month old). So, you're on to something with the title of this post. A few nits, however, corresponding to your 9 points above:

#1. Were this the 17th century, this might carry more weight, as most fathers and mothers were prepared to be the primary spiritual directors of their children's lives. The decline in parental preparedness on this point is obvious, and, while it isn't justifiable, it nonetheless means that the church had better step in, where applicable, and take care of that business.

As with my Baptist upbringing, my experiences in paedobaptist churches cover this by having "communicants" classes, aka "confirmation." The Baptists just didn't call them this.

At any rate, I'm not so sure this practice is wrong, even in those situations where parents are taking their responsibilities as the primary spiritual teachers seriously.

#2. This point strikes me as strange, because while in theory it's true, young children don't commit the kinds of sins we're prone to rebuke in public before the congregation.

#3. A 6 year old can't rebuke another 6 year old for being nasty or selfish, etc.? You do have kids, right?

#4. On the contrary, as Martin Luther said when faced with doubt: "I am baptized." He understood that through the sign of baptism the objective, completed faithfulness of Jesus was promised to him (no doubt individually authenticated by God's Spirit).

#5. Of course, this point is irrelevant to the paedobaptist for obvious reasons. When I was baptized at 6, all that was required for my admission to baptism was for me to "confess with mouth and believe in my heart that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead." While I had to go through a baptism class though, I don't remember an assessment of the genuineness of my faith being "damaging." Though I'll certainly admit that such a thing could be, not least if the one doing the assessment is a legalist.

#6. Instead of making too much of a distinction between a "settled faith" and "a childlike yet superficial acceptance," why not see these as on a continuum in the journey of faith? Yes, I'm suggesting that immature faith (not blind acceptance) is nevertheless a valid faith. So Calvin: "We grant that so long as we are pilgrims in this world faith is implicit, not only because as yet many things are hidden from us, but because, involved in the mists of error, we attain not to all. The highest wisdom, even of him who has attained the highest perfection, is to go forward, and end endeavour in a calm and teachable spirit to make further progress” (Inst. III.ii.4).

#7. And what better guard against the world (and the flesh, and the devil) than the means of grace—the preaching of the Word, prayer, and the sacraments (alright, alright, "ordinances")?

#8. Good point all around. The major way we paedobaptists who are not paedocommunionists alleviate this tension is, as noted above, "communicants class," i.e., "confirmation." But I do think that such confirmation should start much earlier than has traditionally been practiced (but really depending on the child).

#9. Interesting question. One that I suppose should be left to the Baptists to answer. But at the risk of being offensive, I've come to think of the Baptist tradition as part and parcel of the rugged, American individualistic tradition . . .

Thanks for this thought-provoking post. Sorry I went so long. Might repost this on my blog now.

I was baptized at 6 (@ an SBC church), and I'm now a full-fledged paedobaptist. One of the reasons for this is I didn't see much of a difference between the two practices (baptizing at 6 and baptizing a 2 month old). So, you're on to something with the title of this post. A few nits, however, corresponding to your 9 points above:

#1. Were this the 17th century, this might carry more weight, as most fathers and mothers were prepared to be the primary spiritual directors of their children's lives. The decline in parental preparedness on this point is obvious, and, while it isn't justifiable, it nonetheless means that the church had better step in, where applicable, and take care of that business.

As with my Baptist upbringing, my experiences in paedobaptist churches cover this by having "communicants" classes, aka "confirmation." The Baptists just didn't call them this.

At any rate, I'm not so sure this practice is wrong, even in those situations where parents are taking their responsibilities as the primary spiritual teachers seriously.

#2. This point strikes me as strange, because while in theory it's true, young children don't commit the kinds of sins we're prone to rebuke in public before the congregation.

#3. A 6 year old can't rebuke another 6 year old for being nasty or selfish, etc.? You do have kids, right?

#4. On the contrary, as Martin Luther said when faced with doubt: "I am baptized." He understood that through the sign of baptism the objective, completed faithfulness of Jesus was promised to him (no doubt individually authenticated by God's Spirit).

#5. Of course, this point is irrelevant to the paedobaptist for obvious reasons. When I was baptized at 6, all that was required for my admission to baptism was for me to "confess with mouth and believe in my heart that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead." While I had to go through a baptism class though, I don't remember an assessment of the genuineness of my faith being "damaging." Though I'll certainly admit that such a thing could be, not least if the one doing the assessment is a legalist.

#6. Instead of making too much of a distinction between a "settled faith" and "a childlike yet superficial acceptance," why not see these as on a continuum in the journey of faith? Yes, I'm suggesting that immature faith (not blind acceptance) is nevertheless a valid faith. So Calvin: "We grant that so long as we are pilgrims in this world faith is implicit, not only because as yet many things are hidden from us, but because, involved in the mists of error, we attain not to all. The highest wisdom, even of him who has attained the highest perfection, is to go forward, and end endeavour in a calm and teachable spirit to make further progress” (Inst. III.ii.4).

#7. And what better guard against the world (and the flesh, and the devil) than the means of grace—the preaching of the Word, prayer, and the sacraments (alright, alright, "ordinances")?

#8. Good point all around. The major way we paedobaptists who are not paedocommunionists alleviate this tension is, as noted above, "communicants class," i.e., "confirmation." But I do think that such confirmation should start much earlier than has traditionally been practiced (but really depending on the child).

#9. Interesting question. One that I suppose should be left to the Baptists to answer. But at the risk of being offensive, I've come to think of the Baptist tradition as part and parcel of the rugged, American individualistic tradition . . .

Thanks for this thought-provoking post. Sorry I went so long. Might repost this on my blog now.

Hi Mike, thanks for your article. I'm a PCA pastor, and I know that my biases significantly affect the way I am hearing your arguments...but to my ears it sounds like you are saying: children should be baptized on the basis of "their ability to be a full-functioning members in the church" rather than baptized on the basis of "a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ." Or are you saying both, ala "full-functioning member and credible profession of faith"? Could you please comment on this? Gracias!

Mike,

Definitely a provocative post. Can you please tell me whether IX Marks endorses what you have written here?

Thank you for this response, Mike! When I first read Starke's article I was thoroughly disconcerted (and slightly shocked from TGC) and so I am accordingly grateful for your thoughtful, pastoral and biblical (!) response.

May it gain a wide readership and cause many to reconsider the poor and damaging practice of baptizing small children.

Press on!

Thanks for modifying the post but I was especially referring to the title. It's a bit insulting since I don't think Starke would say he would baptize a 2 year old. I didn't think the point of his post was baptizing toddlers but what not baptizing our children who can clearly and wholeheartedly articulate the gospel says to them. Just seemed like that was a cheap shot to me.

For what it's worth, I thought the post over at TGC was interesting and provocative anyhow since TGC isn't an explicitly baptistic organization (Tim Keller's on the Board, after all). It's my understanding that 9Marks is, though?

In any event, I'm Presbyterian and love these Reformed websites, and you can imagine that I find these discussions amusing. :)

I've been wrestling with these matters a lot in my new pastoral ministry. Thank you for your comments. I would say that it seems a lot of Baptist distinctives might be in jeopardy with the Young, Restless and Reformed movement taking their cue from some (very godly) PCA type people. I know that Dever contributed to the "Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches" book I'm currently reading. The challenge about guarding regenerate church membership needs to always be in this discussion as the driving force about not being so cavalier with baptism and children. It seems to be a doctrine that drives Baptists historically as much as immersion!
And while I agree with several points in the comments, I think one of the ultimate points you have in your pocket is the case study of the last 100 years. Increased child baptisms. Increased unregenerate church membership. Like Tad said, that may be because the gospel has not been properly presented. This is tough stuff! Thanks for your contribution.

Your post is helpful to me, Mike, and I think it provides a healthy counterpoint to the article you referenced.

Your provocative title, in particular, helps clarify for me what baptism really displays: the outward sign of an inward transformation. Accordingly, if baptism (from a credobaptist’s perspective) must be on the basis of a profession of faith, it seems prudent in certain situations (e.g., with a young child) to delay baptism so that the parents and visible community may ascertain the genuineness of saving faith. On balance, I suspect one must choose where to push: to run the risk of discouraging a true believer or confirming the faith of a false one?

Again, thanks for you work here. It’s been very helpful for me, even your humble responses.

Mercy to you.

If we as baptists are going to baptise 2,3,4,5 and 6 year olds, I truly believe that it would do less pastoral damage to become paedobaptists..

Baptize is spelled with a Z

I am uneasy about points 1-3, and the strong contrast you make between the family and the church's role in discipling children, based on Ephesians 6:4.

You say, "The instruction is given to fathers to bring up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, not to the church. (Eph 6:4)"

This is faulty logic. The fact that fathers are told to bring their children up in the fear and admonition of the Lord does not mean that the church's commission to make disciples does not include making disciples of children. Yes, this will primarily happen through parents. But the church is called to preach the Gospel and make disciples of all people -- not just those over 12 or 15 or 18, or whatever.

What a disappointing post and discouraging post!

I grew up Southern Baptist and was baptized after I made a profession of faith at age 5. I am now paedobaptist.

This post speaks little of faith and of God's amazing work in the hearts of our children. Belief like this is a stumbling block and flies in the face of "Let the little children come to me."

May God truly have mercy on us for having such weak faith and passing on such to our children.

I was raised baptistic (in practice, non denominational church) and through the course of my life became convinced of paedobaptism. When I read this I basically said Amen!: "If we as baptists are going to baptise 2,3,4,5 and 6 year olds, I truly believe that it would do less pastoral damage to become paedobaptists."

I had some issues with the 9 points and I'm sure they can be heralded by more studied people, but here they are.

1-3. Interesting points however I do NOT believe church discipline need to usurp the role of parents in being an authority to their children. I believe that it can actually be a great learning experience for the children, if done right (understanding that everything can be perverted). For instance. why should not a friend of the family who hears a child bad mouthing their parents for punishing them NOT rebuke the child on behalf of the absent parents? Also, I think children are phenomenal learners and can amaze us at what they understand IF we teach it to them, and I believe (as I have seen first hand) that instruction on discipline can encourage children to start practicing confronting each other (as peers) on their sin issues they see on the playground, in the classroom, and even at each others houses where it would elsewhere go unnoticed. What use is saying the church is a family and calling each other brother and sister if we do not act like it? Isn't that part of the covenant blessings and promises is unity as one body and one family in Christ?

4. I just don't buy this. I think it is more confusing when all the adults and teenagers (who are often LESS righteous then the small children) christians, studying about "their" God, but not welcoming them into the family? Either be consistent and don't tell children that OUR God is THEIR God or let them into the covenant family. Not doing so is confusing.

5-7. 5 and 6 show, in my opinion, the necessity of welcoming children into the covenant as infants. I think that the familial and covenantal treatment of the church and the family (as a little church) is one of the main instructions on the faith, and stability, of the parents. 7 just misses a huge issue, do we disallow the mentally challenged, at adult age, to miss out on the blessings on baptism because of a failure to discern faith beyond trust in Jesus? Where do we draw the lines? How much faith must they recite before we let them in? And as far as deeds, well I have seen more sanctification in children than in some adults. Just seems inconsistent.

8 and 9 i have nothing really to say on. :P

Anyway, thanks for the input. It was a nice piece to get my mind going this morning. Peace be with you brother!

I don't normally comment on blogs like this because invariably there arguments being made by persons more deeply trained in theology than I am. However, my life would have been greatly modified if your suggestion was followed and I do not believe the change would have been to the better.
I have two earliest memories - one of getting my fingers caught in a doorjamb from the insidde of a closet and the second, of accepting Christ as my Savior at the age of 2 1/2. I can vividly recall where I was seated, What I was asked and what my response was.
I was not baptised until I was 6 - not because of some regulation but rather because I did not request it until then.
If you are saying that someone that is newly converted is supposed to be pressured to be baptised, I have to disagree. If they are present ed with training that leads them to decide that they need to be baptised then that is different.
I requested to be baptised after the training I received made me realize that I had accepted Christ but never made a public commitment. My father and I had a very sincere and adult discussion around salvation and baptism before I was baptized.
I had never heard the word paedobaptist until today and I'm rather disappointed that it exists. It my belief that age doesn't matter; understanding matters. The same is true for Holy Communion. If I am trained in the purpose and responsibilities of these sacraments and I make the choice to participate then it is MY choice. To think that anyone else has the ability to discern my relationship with the Father is infathomable.
And just because I was baptised does not mean that I participated in the business of the church. Business matters are between me and the community; therefore, the community has a right to establish limitations.
I will grant that my personal story is rare but I don't think the community of faith has the right to determine my participation in acts of obedience that are between me and my Father; the community of faith has the responsibility of training me in the paths of obedience. No other person has the ability to decide for me but me.

My daughter made a profession of faith when she was 5 years old. She has informed me that she'd like to get baptized. I let her know that I thought it was best to wait. She's now 9 years old.

Since she's professed Christ as her Lord and Savior, she's partaken of Communion. Which I thought was for believers only.

Should I not let her take Communion because she hasn't been baptized yet?

Wow, you're missing the boat here.

1, 2, 3 - There is no need for church "membership" to interfere in proper discipline. There is no biblical requirement that elders handle discipline of a 30 year old the same as a 5 year old. Baptized or not, there are cases where the elders should be involved in the life of a child, and cases where they shouldn't. Baptized or not, the parents should always be involved in the pastoral care of their children.

4 - Your argument attempts to muddle faith and doubts. Faith is not the absence of any doubting thoughts. Faith is perhaps better understood as the trust that Jesus is saving us anyway despite these thoughts. There is no encouragement of hypocrisy in telling a believer we believe that they believe. It's hypocritical to tell your child you doubt they believe even though they have not given you any reason to doubt.

5 - It's horribly sad that you doubt your 9 year old daughter's salvation just on the basis you don't think she's smart enough to be saved. It's just as sad you color the truth to avoid telling her the reality of your doubts. Someday, maybe she'll be well-educated enough to actually believe? Because, you know, our faith is built on nothing less than an arbitrarily-decided level of theological training?

6- So my inability to understand my child is somehow a reflection on her heart? Please. If I am interviewing an adult who is very smart and well-educated, I could make the case that it's very difficult to discern if they are really telling the truth in their profession, because they have the capacity to lie well. So I should therefore doubt all professions from anyone, because they're either too immature to know the truth, or they're mature enough to know how to lie.

7 - Aha! Now we're talking! We'll test them! While we're at it, let's take all of the guys who profess to a strip club, and see if they behave themselves or not. Because really, this is what's being advocated here. "We don't know if the kid will behave or not because he hasn't had the opportunity to misbehave." While there's some truth in the statement, it's not applicable to the argument here.

8 - So when talking about self-examination, there is no measure of "to whom much is given, much is expected"? In other words, we believe the Lord requires the exact same level of self-examination from the child, the mentally disabled, the adult, the elder? The same from the new Christian as the pastor? Or, the Lord expects the child to examine themselves in light of the maturity He has blessed them with at that point in their life?

I'm going to echo the comments above, that church "membership" (baptism) is not of necessity the same as participation in the business affairs of the church, or the disciplinary affairs, for that matter.

While there is a grain of truth in every one of these arguments, they're really not cutting to the heart of the matter. Each one has more problems than it does any application.

I'm going to try to say this without hyperbole, if possible:
If the nine reasons stated here were the ONLY reasons, then I would now be a convinced paedobaptist - convinced by this article! I'm sorry to have to be so blunt here, but NONE of these arguments is at all persuasive, and some are just plain invalid.

I am very familiar with the arguments and the scriptures for credo/paedo, and have struggled through them over the last couple years. Again, if this is the best that the "credo" position could come up with, I'd have to go paedo. I know, it's not very nice of me to say, but trying to be honest. These arguments are not in the least persuasive. Sorry.

Mike,

Your comment about not baptizing a regenerate child concerns me. IF a person is regenerate, that means they're Christian. Romans 8:29-30, "For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified." Once the Holy Spirit regenerates someone, they're on the narrow path to justification, which then leads to sanctification for the rest of our lives. Although I'm firmly paedobaptist, I think your comment is inconsistent with a credobaptist viewpoint, as well as your original post's comments about a 'waiting period' to determine if their faith takes or not. If that's valuable for children, shouldn't credobaptists also enforce a waiting period for adults who confess 'Jesus as Lord'?

In His service,
"Cricket"

I am a pastor. My son is four. He confessed faith in Jesus and repentance for sin when he was about 3.5. It is not as robust a faith as I or his mother have but it is real and I will not undercut or cheapen it.

Most weeks, I give my son communion with the rest of the church. He does examine his heart. Some weeks it is heart and he abstains. Other weeks he prays with me first and confesses current sins before partaking.

I have to disagree with your assertions that their is a "proper order" to communion and baptism. It is apples to oranges to compare baptism and communion to marriage and sex. Baptism and Communion are privileges of Christian faith, not requirements. And formal church membership is not a requirement to participate in communion.

My son will continue to take communion most weeks and someday, when he's ready I will baptize him. But of those thing are entirely separate from his potential membership in our church. This is the model I display and encourage for all parents with young children at my church.

Scripture is clear on one thing, children are presented as both foolish and fickle. Childishness is always presented as a negative characteristic. The only positive aspect of childhood that is presented is that of faith, by Jesus. Truly, the child of an abusive parent will still place their faith in that parent, for it's the only stability that they have. Children are a model of faith, generically, not faith "in Christ". If we want to be biblical, children are never pictured as being "evangelized" in Scripture, just taught. From the Old Testament to the New, the command is to train children, teach them in the fear of the Lord. As Baptist, those we respect, historically, would have never dreamed of baptizing children so young. As a parent, I know the agonizing desire for my children to be saved, above all else, but none can give them assurance but the Spirit, who is our seal of assurance. May we all be passionate about training and teaching our children, until the Spirit Himself testifies that He has indeed wrought a change in their lives.

Mike,

Found you through Challies - good post. I have a thought or two on the meta:

First, this is a very focused discussion to which Paedobaptists really cannot contribute. No disrespect to them; some of my close friends are paedobaptistic, but the point of the post was what happens when we baptize young children while teaching all that credobaptists teach about baptism. That has consequences which infant baptism could never have.

Second, baptism is not the only means by which we can encourage faith. Those who are responding by saying that Mike has discounted the faith of young children have missed the point entirely.

Third, the most helpful advise I ever read on this subject was in a book entitled Tell the Truth by Will Metzger. He pointed out that to be a disciple of Jesus, one must take up his cross to follow Him. This never happens with young children of Christian parents, because what they want most in the world is their parents' approval. If their faith is true, then one day they will accept the scorn of their peers for Christ, but until they do, we cannot honestly pass judgment on the quality of their faith. Young children who profess faith, then, should be encouraged to persevere until they may join the church.

Finally, the painful aspect of this teaching is making the change within a church. When a church has regularly baptized the very young it is difficult for the first children encouraged to wait. When a church functions as Baptist churches did historically (only baptizing adults) the children do not expect baptism and its refusal poses no real problem to their faith. I believe it is better on balance to make that transition, and once made, the benefit to the children in the church is immense.