Infant Baptism: A Continuity Of God's Covenant Grace

- A Presbyterian and a Baptist were debating methods of baptism.

o Presbyterian: If I get wet up to my ankles, would that be enough?

o Baptist: No.

o Presbyterian: If I get wet up to my knees, will that be enough?

o Baptist: No.

o Presbyterian: What about up to my neck? If I get into a pool up to my neck, surely that’s enough?

o Baptist: No.

o Presbyterian: Right then, what about up to my ears? If I get wet up to my ears, that MUST be enough?

o Baptist: NO!

And the Presbyterian said, “I knew it! I was right all along! It’s just the top of your head that matters!”

Now, baptism has been a subject of debate for nearly 2000 years... and the discussion hasn’t slowed down... From the earliest days of the church, Christians have grappled with the question: Who should be baptized—infants or only those who profess the faith? That’s where our story begins today—on the surface, just a humorous joke between a Presbyterian and a Baptist, but beneath it, an invitation to reflect on the why of the baptism question. Now, I admit—this may feel a little more like a seminary lecture than a sermon.

But I encourage you to hang in there. Beneath all the theological terms and Scripture references, there is a rich harvest to be gathered—a deeper understanding of God’s covenant love, the grace of Jesus, and the power of the Spirit who marks us as God’s own.

Now, when I discuss topics like baptism, where faithful Christians hold differing views, I find it helpful to think in terms of categories of significance... This is what I mean:

You may have heard the phrase (often, and maybe wrongly, attributed to Augustine): “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” This means we stay united in core beliefs, allow freedom in secondary matters, and act with love in everything. There’s another helpful term from the Reformation: Adiaphora—translated as “indifferent things.” In other words, issues Scripture doesn’t clearly command or forbid. Like Paul’s advice on eating meat sacrificed to idols—not a hill to die on. In today’s terms, we might discuss the color of the sanctuary carpet or whether you prefer Coke, Lemonade, or Iced Tea during fellowship hour. They are, to borrow the term, “indifferent things... Adiaphora”

And that’s the spirit I want to bring into our conversation today - because not all theological differences carry the same weight. Some are non-negotiable, some are negotiable, and all of them should be approached with humility and a willingness to learn.

For me, baptism comes down to this foundational question: “What is the focus of baptism for you? Is baptism primarily about YOUR response to God’s grace—or is it about receiving and resting in the promises He has made to His people?” Does baptism testify to the grace of God in salvation, where God is the one who initiates, calls, and saves? Or does baptism testify to your response of faith to God’s saving work?

Put simply: Is baptism about your faith—or is it about God’s faithfulness? And with both humility, baptism is not about what we do for God; it is about what God promises to do for us. Infant baptism reflects the continuity of God’s covenant grace throughout Scripture—from Abraham to us. The power of baptism is not found in our action, but in God's faithfulness... And the efficacy of baptism lies not in the amount of water or the age of the baptized, but in the unchanging promise of our covenant-keeping God.

One of the strongest theological arguments for infant baptism rests on the continuity of God’s covenant across the Old and New Testaments. From the very beginning, God related to His people through a covenant—a binding relationship initiated by grace and confirmed through signs. In the Old Testament, the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham was circumcision, given not just to adults, but to their children as well. Now, this wasn’t a sign of personal faith or understanding, but a mark of belonging to the covenant community—a visible expression that they were included in God’s promises and purposes.

And this pattern of covenant relationship doesn’t vanish in the Old Testament. I would argue that it finds fulfillment in Jesus Christ... Colossians 2:11-12 draws a theological connection between circumcision and baptism. Paul writes that in Christ, we were “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands...” We are marked (like the OT circumcision) - but it is made without hands... Then we ask, “What is the circumcision made without hands?” Then immediately, Paul speaks of baptism as the sign of our burial and resurrection with Jesus Christ.

In other words, baptism is the New Covenant counterpart to the Old Testament practice of circumcision. Just as infants were brought into the covenant community under Abraham through circumcision, so also, in the New Covenant, we bring our children into the community through baptism—not because they have faith, but because God’s promises extend to them as well. So, infant baptism was never a break away from Scripture’s pattern... It is a continuation and fulfillment of God’s covenant faithfulness.