Baptism: Who Has the Burden of Proof?

When discussing baptism and examining the Scriptural evidence for believers baptism and that for infant baptism, one foundational question which always surfaces is, which side has the burden of proof? Does the practice of infant baptism rest on already established commands of Scripture, given prior to the New Testament era, and therefore there need not be any explicit New Testament teaching in support of infant baptism in order for it to be the practice of the church? Or is baptism, being a New Testament ordinance, new, and therefore it is something which requires explicit teaching regarding who is to receive it? Paedobaptists, those who believe that the children of believers are to be baptized, regardless of their personal faith, look at the household baptisms in Acts and say, “Where does it say that all those who were baptized are believers?” Credobaptists, those who believe that only professing believers are to be baptized, look at the record of Acts and say, “Where does it say that unbelieving infants are being baptized?” Our prior commitments cause us to find support for our own view in the same passages which lead others to the opposite conclusion. This show the difficulty of the task at hand.

In a real sense, each side has the burden of proving from Scripture with clear, reasoned arguments why they hold to a particular view of baptism. Neither side can say, I just assume a particular view and will hold to it unless convinced otherwise. Our doctrine ought not be formed from tradition or the convictions of others, but from God's Word alone.

Thankfully, there are many areas of argreement between credobaptists like myself who hold to covenant theology, and paedobaptists. Although there were temporal aspects to the covenant made with Abraham, we see that the covenant God made with Abraham is not forgotten or erased by the coming of the new covenant. The old covenant types are fulfilled in the coming of the new, and God's promise to bless the nations through Abraham's seed is fulfilled in the coming of Christ. The coming of the Messiah and the beginning of the New Testament era do not give us liberty to dismiss previously given commands without Biblical warrant, as if nothing written in Scripture prior to Matthew chapter one matters for us today. This is no new idea: There are theologians who have held to covenant theology while also embracing credobaptism, such as John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon, and John Gill.

Paedobaptists have challenged credobaptists to show where there has been a repeal of the command to give the sign of the covenant to infants. When this challenge is given, it is useful to remind ourselves what the actual sign of the covenant in the Old Testament, was: That sign was circumcision. It is true that the sign of the old administration cannot be done away with without explicit teaching. Yet there is explicit teaching in this direction. When we look at the diversity between the old and new covenants, we do see that circumcision has been abrogated as a command for God's people (Galatians 6:15). Circumcision was the sign of the old covenant, and it is called a sign and seal of the righteousness of God to Abraham in Romans 4. All that is needed to show that there has been a change in the administration of the old testament sign and seal is to read what the New Testament says about circumcision.

Sometimes when reading the arguments for paedobaptism, it sounds as if its proponents think that it is paedobaptism and not circumcision which was the sign of the old administration, as if infant baptism was an Old Testament practice. Bryan Chapell writes in The Case For Infant Baptism, “...opponents of infant baptism face the absence of a specific command to deny children the covenant sign and seal...It seems highly probable that if the apostles had changed that practice, that change would have been recorded in the New Testament...”. Since the covenant sign in the Old Testament was circumcision, the change in practice is specifically taught when Paul writes that circumcision is nothing (1 Corinthians 7:19). This could not have been said under the Old Testament economy. If the argument was whether or not circumcision is still commanded to be performed on eight day old male infants, then the burden of proof is certainly on the one arguing there has been a change, and the proof is ample. In the same way, if infant baptism was the Old Testament sign and seal instituted by God, then the burden of proof would rest on those claiming it is no longer commanded. But no one is claiming either of these positions in the debate on baptism. Paedobaptists do believe that the Bible teaches there has been a change with regards to the Old Testament sign. They believe, however, that it is not enough for God to say that circumcision has been done away with, but all the specifics of how that sign was to be administered must also be explicitly mentioned as abgrogated, or we will apply the “how” from the old covenant sign to a different “what.”

We are not allowed to switch from noticing similarities to extrapolating commands. One can see similarity between circumcision and baptism without saying, as James Bannerman does, “...that whatever you can say about circumcision you can say about baptism, because their meaning is identical.” This would lead us to conclude that only males are to be recipients of baptism, as only males received the sign of circumcision in the Old Testament. But we see that is not the case from Lydia's baptism in Acts 16. There are similarities between the priestly office in the Old Testament and the New Testament office of elder. But we are not free to draw lines where the Bible hasn't, and say that the priestly garments under Moses are commanded for an elder of a New Testament church. And the silence of the New Testament on the subject of priestly clothing is not support for such a view. Just because we see similarities in the significance of two symbols doesn't mean we can borrow the explicit commands regarding one and attach them to the other.

It is generally agreed by both paedobaptists and credobaptists that John the Baptist did not baptize infants. He, in fact, when approached by the multitudes to be baptized, though they were descendants of Abraham, refused them, saying, “...bear fruits worthy of repentance...” (Luke 3:7-9). Whether or not one considers the baptism of John to be Christian baptism, this passage shows that despite Israel's long history of infants receiving the sign of the covenant, John the baptist did not believe that one can deduce from that a command to include the children of Abraham in this new ordinance. Nor does he direct us to observe whether or not those in the multitude are the children of believers, though that's what we would expect if the history of children being born into the old covenant teaches who are the proper recipients of a new ordinance. That communion is generally not administered to infants in paedobaptist churches shows that the long history of children being included in the old covenant regardless of their personal faith does not automatically determine the New Testament church practice.

Having examined the issue of the burden of proof, the proper subject of baptism is not determined by this. The New Testament teaching regarding baptism and new covenant membership must still be considered and evaluated. We see that we cannot conclude that “...the silence of the New Testament regarding the baptism of infants militates in favor of rather than against this practice,” as Charles Marcel writes. Hebrews 8 and 10 tell us what is new about the new covenant, and that is a good place to direct our attention. Godly men and women have come down on both sides of this debate. And many have reminded us not to ignore the continuity between the covenants. But also let us not form a view of baptism that minimizes the diversity of the covenants.