Paedobaptism etymologically derives from Paedo (from Greek παῖς, παιδός – pais, paidos: meaning “Child” or “Infant”) and baptism (from Greek βάπτισμα – baptisma: meaning “Immersion” or “Baptism”), and thus refers to the Baptism of infants or young children. Numerous Christian denominations adhere to this practice and assert that it is Biblically viable: the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Lutheran Church, and certain Churches among the Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Wesleyans, Moravians, and UCC’s (United Church of Christ). 

As a means to vindicate the practice of infant baptism, these denominations primarily appeal to the Old Covenant sign of circumcision and assert that its administration on the eighth day after birth proves Paedobaptism is valid. However, this is a false equivalence, as infants in the Old Covenant were circumcised due to a covenantal promise that pertained to their bloodline. Conversely, the New Covenantal promises pertain to those who believe, regardless of bloodline (John 3:16, John 6:40, Romans 10:9-10, John 1:12, Ephesians 2:8-9, Hebrews 11:6, Acts 16:31, Galatians 3:22). If an Old Covenant infant was born into the bloodline of Abraham, they would never cease to be a descendant of Abraham, nor could they change their lineage if they willed it. Yet, in the New Covenant, a baptized infant can most certainly grow up and lose their faith, or even fail to develop faith in the first place. This is important, as it is clear in scripture that baptism always follows belief and repentance:

• Mark 16:16, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
• Acts 2:38, “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
• Acts 8:12/36-38, “But when they believed Philip as he was preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were being baptized… As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, ‘Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ And he ordered that the chariot stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.”
• Acts 18:8, “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.”

Accordingly, appealing to the Old Covenant circumcision is an inadequate apologetic for those seeking to promote the practice of Paedobaptism. 

Nonetheless, Pastor Doug Wilson has outlined how it may be argued that “Children were included in the covenant made with Abraham, and were included for 1800 years, down to the time of Christ. If the Christian Church is a continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant, then wouldn’t we need an argument for excluding children? And wouldn’t it follow that we did not need an argument for including them?” 

This reasoning is invalid for several reasons: 

1. The Israelites were also included in the Abrahamic Covenant for 1800 years, down to the time of Christ, and one of the promises in this covenant was that Abraham’s offspring shall inhabit the Holy Land for all generations (Genesis 13:14-17, Genesis 15:18-21, Genesis 26:2-5, Genesis 28:13-15, Exodus 6:4-8). Yet, the Israelites were not only restricted from entering this land, but uprooted from it and stripped of these blessings due to disbelief and disobedience (Numbers 14:11, Deuteronomy 1:32-35, Deuteronomy 30:17-18, 2 Kings 17:14-18, Psalm 78:21-22, Isaiah 7:4/8-9, Hebrews 3:18-19). Accordingly, it may be argued that the covenant itself is everlasting, but the promises within it are conditional and dependent on the recipients belief and obedience. Since the New Testament emphasizes belief and repentance as prerequisites for baptism, we shall not take the covenant or its blessings for granted, and instead abstain from baptism until one can consciously profess their faith and adhere to its statutes. Otherwise, we are no different than the circumcised Israelites who grew up, strayed from the faith, and were severely punished for doing so.
2. The Abrahamic Covenant was initially pertinent to the Abrahamic bloodline, which was commanded to circumcise their male offspring on the eighth day after birth. However, the covenant also foretold that through Abraham, “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). This universal blessing is realized in Christ, extending to Gentiles who were not part of the Abrahamic lineage. Notably, these Gentiles received the covenant’s blessings without undergoing circumcision, indicating that physical rituals were not a prerequisite for inclusion. Similarly, in the New Covenant, baptism serves as a sign of faith. Since Gentiles were included without adopting the physical sign of circumcision, it follows that baptism should be administered based on personal faith, rather than as a standardized ritual parallel to circumcision.
3. Paedobaptist arguments are presuppositional, in that they suppose that baptism is an extension or altered continuation of circumcision—but it is not. While both circumcision and baptism serve as initiation rites into their respective covenants, they are not direct equivalents. The Abrahamic Covenant’s practice of infant circumcision on the eighth day does not necessitate a corresponding practice of infant baptism in the New Covenant. If proponents of paedobaptism argue for infant baptism based on this parallel, consistency would require adhering to the specific timing and gender stipulations of circumcision, such as performing the rite on the eighth day and applying it only to males. The absence of such practices among Paedobaptists suggests a recognition of the fundamental differences between the two covenants and their respective signs.
4. The Apostle Paul emphasizes that physical circumcision is no longer a requirement under the New Covenant (Galatians 5:2-6, Philippians 3:3). This indicates a shift from external rituals to a focus on internal faith and spiritual transformation. While there are certainly parallels between circumcision and baptism, the former’s obsolescence suggests that its specific practices should not dictate the administration of the latter. Baptism, as a sign of the New Covenant, should reflect the covenant’s emphasis on personal faith and repentance, rather than serving as a direct continuation of Old Covenant rituals.

Now, proponents of Paedobaptism will also jump to conclusions regarding household baptisms in the New Testament and assume that infants were present. However, there is no explicit mention that infants were baptized in these instances.

One example they appeal to is Acts 16:29-34, which states: “The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.’ Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.” 

Here we see that the Philippian Jailer had Paul and Silas preach to his household, and all his family members believed. Infants are incapable of cognitive functions such as understanding and believing, so the fact that all his family believed after being preached to proves that there were no infants present. That said, Paedobaptists may argue that the claim, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household”, proves that the patriarch’s belief is extended to the rest of his family, and that belief is only required for the head of the family in order for the household to be saved. This is assumptive, as the statement, “you and your household” may not be a claim that the jailers belief will save both him and his household. Rather, “you and your household” is a prescriptive statement, in that “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved”, is applied to both him and his family. Thus, this passage affirms personal faith as the basis for baptism, not the faith of a household’s patriarch.

The same contention is applicable to other passages regarding household baptism. For example, Acts 18:8 states: “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.” Once again, we are given a scenario in which an entire household believes in the Lord and is baptized accordingly. Consider that this passage states, “Crispus… believed in the Lord, together with his entire household”—not that Crispus believed in the Lord, and was baptized together with his entire household. The former, being what is written, implies that “together with his entire household” is applicable to the belief exhibited by Crispus—the entire household believed. In contrast, the latter, if it were stated, would explicitly attest to the households baptism on the basis of his belief alone. Evidently, Crispus’ family also believed in the Lord, and this is why they were baptized.

Next, Acts 16:14 states: “One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’ And she prevailed upon us.” Paedobaptists often point to this passage as evidence that the faith of the head of a household is sufficient to justify the baptism of the entire household, even without individual belief. Among the so-called “household baptisms,” this passage may seem the most persuasive, as it explicitly mentions Lydia’s faith while making no direct statement about the unanimous faith of her household. However, the text does not affirm that only Lydia believed, nor does it state that her household was baptized on the basis of her belief. Any claim that her household was baptized without personal belief relies on an argument from silence rather than explicit scriptural evidence. It is just as reasonable, and perhaps more consistent with the broader teaching of Scripture, to assume that Lydia, after coming to faith, would have shared the gospel with her household. The natural reading of the narrative allows for the possibility that her family also heard Paul’s message, believed, and were baptized accordingly. This interpretation aligns with the clear pattern seen elsewhere in Acts, where baptism is consistently linked to personal faith (e.g., Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12, Acts 18:8).

The aforementioned arguments posited by Paedobaptists somewhat rely on Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 7:14: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” For one, sanctification is the action of making or declaring something holy—it is not the action of imparting personal belief. So, while Paul acknowledges that a believing parent sanctifies their child, this does not suggest that the child has a faith of their own, nor does it validate Paedobaptism. Belief is an individualistic matter, and unless the infant or child believes in the Lord, which is required for baptism, they should refrain from being baptized. Also consider that the parent’s belief sanctifies the offspring and sets them apart. If this is the case, why would baptism be necessary? One reason Paedobaptists baptize infants and children is so that they may be sanctified, despite being incapable of belief at such a stage of their life. Yet, all that is required for the sanctification of one’s offspring is that one parent believes, rendering Paedobaptism redundant. Accordingly, the sanctified offspring should wait until they are capable of confirming that sanctification by being baptized. 

Now, aside from the Biblical Canon, it is also fitting to appeal to the Didache (also known as ‘The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles’)—an early Christian document dating from the late 1st to early 2nd century AD. It provides practical instructions on Christian ethics, worship, and church practices, including clear guidelines for baptism. While it does not explicitly state that baptism requires belief in the way that the Gospels and later Christian writings do, it does imply a degree of conscious faith and preparation. 

Didache 7:4 states: “Before the baptism, let the one baptizing and the one being baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. Instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days beforehand.” For one, the requirement for the baptized individual to fast beforehand suggests a level of understanding and intentional participation, which would point towards baptism being administered to those capable of belief. Of course, to fast is to intentionally abstain from the consumption of food and drink, but an infant cannot consciously consent to such a practice—despite the fact that their parents may choose not to feed them or provide liquids to drink. 

Moreover, in chapters 1-6 of the Didache, there is a clear emphasis on moral instruction (the “Two Ways” teaching—one of life and one of death). This suggests a catechetical process, meaning baptism followed a period of extensive teaching. Infants are incapable of cognitive functions such as comprehending theology or adhering to a set of instructions, so it would be incorrect to assume that the Didache supported Paedobaptism. 

Moreover, Tertullian (155–240 AD), an Early Church Father from Carthage, was not in favour of Paedobaptism and argued that baptism should be reserved for those who are able to consciously repent. His work titled ‘On Baptism’ is often quoted by those seeking to refute the practice of baptizing infants and young children: 

“And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary-that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.’ Let them ‘come,’ then, while they are growing up; let them ‘come’ while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ‘ask’ for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asketh.’” (Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 18; Translation from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson)

Here, Tertullian questions whether baptizing infants is appropriate and necessary, emphasizing that baptism is for those who have faith and the ability to repent. Some of the core contentions include:

1. Delay is preferable: Tertullian explicitly states that delaying baptism is better, especially for “little children”. 
2. Risk to sponsors: He highlights the practical issue of sponsors (godparents) who may die or fail in their duties, suggesting infant baptism imposes unnecessary risks.
3. Capacity for faith: He argues that children should come to baptism when they can understand and seek it themselves, challenging the idea of baptizing those incapable of knowing Christ.
4. Innocence doesn’t require remission: He questions why an “innocent period of life” needs sins remitted, implying that infants have no personal guilt necessitating baptism.

While this is not an utter condemnation of Paedobaptism, it is a clear refutation and raises valid questions regarding its practice. 

In conclusion, the case for Paedobaptism fails to align with the clear teaching of the New Testament, which consistently presents baptism as a response to personal faith and repentance. Attempts to justify the practice by appealing to Old Covenant circumcision overlook a fundamental shift between the covenants: while circumcision was administered based on physical lineage, the blessings of the New Covenant are extended to those who personally believe, regardless of ancestry. This distinction is not merely ritualistic but reflects the heart of the gospel—salvation is by grace through faith, not by external rites or familial association. Moreover, the earliest Christian writings, such as the ‘Didache’ and Tertullian’s ‘On Baptism’, emphasize conscious participation in the baptismal rite, further undermining the legitimacy of infant baptism. To baptize those incapable of faith is to blur the biblical order and risk reducing a sacred, faith-affirming ordinance to a mechanized ritual. True baptism testifies to a living faith—one that cannot be borrowed, inherited, or conferred by another’s belief.

Insofar as my personal opinion, it is similar to Tertullian’s. I will not outright condemn the practice, as I am not an authority on matters of the Church or practices that have been held for millennia. However, I would advise against it on the basis of scriptural statements regarding faith and repentance as prerequisites. With that said, I myself was baptized as an infant by the Roman Catholic Church, and while I strayed from the faith in my teenage years, I gained a stronger belief than ever before in my early 20’s. I believe that because of my baptism and confirmation, Christ remained with me and imparted grace, even in my period of disobedience, disbelief, and blasphemy. This is not a void speculation, as this sentiment is derived from John 6:37-39: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.” Essentially, I was given to Christ upon baptism, and it is the Fathers will that He shall lose nothing that has been given to Him. Of course, it may be argued that it was not the Father who gave me to Christ, but my parents. Nonetheless, my parent’s belief granted me sanctification (in accordance with 1 Corinthians 7:14), and because of this, I was ‘set apart’ from an early age. Moreover, I myself chose to confirm my faith in Grade 8 of Elementary School, which was an act of personal faith. So, while it was my parent’s choice to baptize me as an infant, I was still sanctified through their faith and expressed a degree of personal faith later on.