- 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.
Infant baptism affirms that God’s covenant is not just for isolated individuals but for families, for generations, for a people. Just as the children of Israel were not excluded from God's visible covenant community in the Old Testament, so too should the children of believers be included in the visible church today—not because they have chosen God, but because God, in His mercy, has chosen to mark them with His promise. Baptism is not about what we do for God; it is about what God promises to do for us...
Another essential factor to consider is that several times in the Book of Acts and Paul’s letters, we read about entire households being baptized, after the parent or head of the household comes to faith. Acts 16, when the Philippian jailer asks what he must do to be saved, Paul replies, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Then we are told that the jailer was baptized “at once, he and all his household” (Acts 16:33).
Similarly, Lydia in Acts 16:15,
Crispus in Acts 18:8,
Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 1:16,
And Cornelius in Acts 10 all had all their household baptized along with them.
In each case, the text deliberately uses the inclusive term "household" (oikos in Greek), which, in that cultural context, would typically include not only adults but also children, servants, and possibly infants. Some biblical scholars even argue as far as that the word oikos is an explicit reference to a household with infants. While these passages do not explicitly say that infants were there, I think that the burden of proof might rest on the believer’s baptism camp! Because in the cultural and historical context of the first century, households were often extended family units, where infants and young children were almost certainly present.
Furthermore, in no household baptism account is there any restriction placed on age or personal confession prior to baptism—instead, the focus is on the faith of the head of household and the inclusion of all under his care.
Think of it like this. It’s a bit like when a parent signs up the whole family for health insurance: the children don’t apply individually or understand all the terms, but because of the parent’s decision, the entire household comes under the coverage. This is consistent with the Old Testament pattern, where the faith of a covenant head resulted in covenant blessings being extended to the family (e.g., Abraham and his descendants through circumcision). If the New Covenant, in Jesus Christ, is greater and more inclusive than the old, it seems unlikely that children would now be excluded from receiving its sign...
Again, Baptism is not about what we do for God; it is about what God promises to do for us...
But someone might say this, “Dasol, that’s a good reference to Scripture and a powerful argument... But don’t you think that faith precedes baptism?" “Dasol, if you look at many places in the Bible, like the Book of Acts, there are instances where Philip in Samaria, the Ethiopian Eunuch, and even Peter show that faith always precedes baptism. The order is always repentance --> Baptism.”
How can infants repent? How can they make a confession of faith?
And to that, I would say you are right and I agree with you 1000 percent. Faith always precedes baptism for adults. You know I am “arguing” for infant baptism, but I believe in believers’ baptism. Did you know that? People who believe in infant baptism also believe in believer’s baptism! (there’s no doubt about that). Suppose an adult came to Christ and began attending my church. I won’t baptize him unless he makes a public and open confession of faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. Faith precedes baptism for adults, just as faith preceded circumcision for Abraham in the Old Testament.
However, the fact is that this precedent did not exclude infants from receiving the sign... Abraham believed first, and then he was commanded to apply the sign to his infant son Isaac and all the male infants in his household. The same logic applies in the New Testament: adult converts profess faith before baptism (I believe in believer’s baptism), but that does not eliminate the biblical precedent (The case of Abraham) for extending the sign of the covenant to their children.
But another might say this: “Dasol, you keep making it sound like that circumcision in the OT and baptism in the NT are identical. What if they’re not the same? Then that breaks your entire argument!" And to that, I say, “Circumcision and baptism are not identical, but they serve the same covenantal function, which is a sign and a seal of God’s promise.” Infant baptism agrees that circumcision and baptism are not identical in form or theology. Circumcision was blood, ethnic, and male-only, while Baptism is bloodless, for all people, and applies to all believers (male and female). Yes, they are absolutely different...
However, both served the same covenantal role: A God-ordained, outward sign marking one as part of God's visible covenant community. Again, going back to the Colossians text... Paul intentionally connects circumcision with baptism to illustrate how the continuity of covenant signs is fulfilled in Christ, not erased. The form may change, but the function remains, Both are initiatory signs into God’s people...
Again, baptism is about God’s covenant faithfulness...
Now, based on the crucial theme of God’s covenant faithfulness, I have tried to open your mind to the idea of infant baptism. However, there is something equally important. We need to know what infant baptism is not. Infant baptism is not a guarantee of salvation. It is wrong to believe that infant baptism sets the child apart and begins the process of regeneration.
Baptism doesn’t save: faith does. Like circumcision (Romans 9:6-8), baptism is a sign of covenant inclusion, not a ticket to heaven. Faith must follow as the infant grows. Imagine you’re going to a baseball game. You’ve got your team jersey and your foam finger. Now, just because you’re wearing the jersey doesn’t mean you can just walk into the stadium, right? The jersey shows what team you’re rooting for, but it’s not the ticket that gets you through the gate.
Baptism is like that jersey—it’s an outward sign that identifies you with God’s covenant people (God’s team). But it’s not the actual ticket into salvation. That ticket is faith alone in Jesus Christ... Salvation always was, is, and will be by grace through faith alone. Even in the Old Testament, not everyone who was circumcised was truly a believer or saved. Paul says in Romans, “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.”
Similarly, not everyone baptized as an infant is automatically saved. The covenant sign marks one as part of the community, but each individual must come to faith in Christ to receive the promise of salvation. Baptism for infants, in this sense, is not a guarantee of salvation but a sign of God's covenant grace, a reminder that God extends His promises to all generations, that we believe in a faithful God, and the hope that, as they grow, they will come to personally claim and live out that faith.
Whether you're baptized as an infant or as a believer, the hope and assurance of baptism is the same—God’s grace, from start to finish. God’s grace, from cradle to the grave. Baptism does not save us—Jesus does. However, baptism is a sign and a seal of what God has done, is doing, and will do in and through us—and that includes infants.
So, when we witness a baptism in the church, whether it’s a child held in their parents' arms or an adult stepping into the waters, we are reminded that God is faithful. We are reminded that grace comes first. And we are reminded that salvation is not our achievement, but His gift.
The power of baptism is not found in us, but in God’s covenant faithfulness.
So, wouldn’t you rest in His covenantal faithfulness? Wouldn’t you rest in the unchanging promise of God that extends even to the smallest and weakest of infants?
