Shall We Baptize Children? Part 2: Scriptural Foundations | Sam Waldron

by Sam Waldron | Jul 10, 2025 | Ecclesiology, Historical Theology, Practical Theology, Systematic Theology

*Editor’s Note: The following blog series titled “Shall We Baptize Children” was originally delivered by Pastor Sam Waldron to his congregation, Grace Reformed Baptist Church (Owensboro, KY), as Sunday School lessons to help his congregation better understand Baptism. The view expressed by Dr. Waldron in this series is not the uniform position of all professors of CBTS nor the official view of the Seminary. As more installments of this series are released, each part will be linked together.

To read part 1 of this series, click here.

To read part 3 of this series, click here.

General Introduction: On the Practice of Our Reformed Baptist Forefathers

Mark Dever and Capitol Hill Baptist Church practice adult only baptism. Here is part of the statement from their website in which they state their understanding of historic, Particular and Reformed Baptist practice on this issue:

while it is not generally known among American evangelicals today, the practice of baptizing pre-teenage children is of recent development (largely early 20th century) and of limited geography (largely limited to the United States, and places where American evangelicals have exercised great influence). Baptists in the past were known for waiting to baptize until the believers were adults.  Baptistic Christians around the world are still much more cautious than modern American Christians, often waiting in Europe, Africa and Asia to baptize until children are grown and are in their 20’s.

I found this both an interesting and informative statement and wanted to know if it was accurate. Therefore, I asked our own very knowledge-able Baptist Historian, Pastor Ron Miller of Clarksville, TN if he agreed with it. Here is what he wrote me:

Yes, I do. To the best of my understanding that is a very accurate historical statement. The only possible improvement I would make is that the word “preteen” could also be replaced with “early to mid-teenage” and still be accurate. …. I’ve been studying the age of baptism in the 17th century for the Particular Pilgrims broadcast. What I have found is that the Particular Baptists practiced “adult baptism”. This is their common way of describing their position. Other historians agree that is their view. They of course argued against infant or “childish” baptism. These names seem to be rooted in the legal system of the day. People of age were called adults and everyone else was an infant. I often wondered why there weren’t other categories like young child, older child, teenager, etc in the literature. But it seems they were working with these two legal categories in their minds. The earliest age of baptism I can find is no earlier than 16. This matches being “of age” or “of the age of maturity” or “adult” in British law at the time. So a person could marry, make a contract, etc. So this was the age they could join themselves to a congregation by covenant or pledge as the Baptists typically did. And since baptism always led to church membership, they weren’t separate questions or events. Baptism had to happen at a time when they joined a local church. …. Of course Baptists of the time most often describe baptism as that of believers. But when they discuss age, it was only done as adults. …. Finally, in my study I don’t see any change in this until the 1800s and revivalism. There is another brother who has studied the 18th century and found the practices to be the same as in the 17th. From my reading I would agree with this.

If you are like me, you may find these assessments of Reformed Baptist history surprising and even shocking—given the common practice of Baptists in the USA today.

But, of course, the issue is not what tradition—even our own tradition says—, it is rather what the Scriptures teach. But those early Baptists also believed in sola scriptura. Thus, the history I have cited should, however, make us ask this question: What is it about the Bible that led to their practice and which we may have overlooked?

This leads us into a study of the scriptural foundations which must be considered with regard to this question of the baptism of children. Right now in my notes I have four such scriptural foundations which I would like to consider. The first one is this:

Section 1: A Biblical Theology of Minor Children

I think something that is commonly appreciated among us is actually true. The present generation of so-called “evangelical Christians” is not known for its depth of biblical knowledge. One of the things that led me to feel a call for the ministry in my early college days was the growing conviction that there was a bankruptcy of biblical knowledge among such evangelicals. This abysmal lack of biblical knowledge and doctrine is manifested in many ways. But it is also manifested in what I can only call a terrible naivete about children which leads to superficial practice with regard to child evangelism and, yes, the baptism of children. What is necessary to correct this is what I am calling here, A Biblical Theology of Minor Children. There are a number of seriously important but sadly neglected passages on this issue. In the remainder of this class I want to set them before you in order that you may feel their united force and implications clearly. The first passage in this biblical collage is …

1 Corinthians 13:11

1 Corinthians 13:11—When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

• What is the context of this statement? 

Some good men believe that in this context Paul is contrasting the condition of the church before the completion of the canon and the condition of the church as to knowledge after the completion of the canon. I rather think that in the context Paul is contrasting the condition of the church in the darkness of the present age with the light and glory of the coming age. This is what is in view when he says in 1 Corinthians 13:10: “… but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.” This is also what is in view in my opinion in 1 Corinthians 13:12: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.”

Now with regard to this contrast, Paul searches in his mind for an illustration. The one he hits on is found in our text. To illustrate this contrast, he points to the difference between adults and children. And that leads me to my second question.

• What are the ways in which Paul contrasts children and adults?

Paul uses three key verbs to contrast adults and children.

The first contrast uses the common word meaning,“speak.” This is a general word. It is the same one used so many times in 1 Corinthians 14 to refer to speaking in tongues, speaking prophecy, and speaking in general. John Gill comments as follows:

When I was a child I spake as a child, …. That cannot speak plain, aims at words rather than expresses them, delivers them in a lisping or stammering manner: hereby the apostle illustrates the then present gift of speaking with divers tongues, which was an extraordinary gift of the Spirit, was peculiar to some persons, and what many were very fond of; and yet this, in its highest degree and exercise, was but like the lisping of a child, in comparison of what will be known and expressed by saints, when they come to be perfect men in heaven:

The second contrast uses the word, think. The verb, think, refers, of course, to the mind. Matthew Poole comments here as follows:

See on Romans 8:5. The kindred noun φρένες occurs only once in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 14:20, where also it is associated with children in the sense of reflection or discrimination. Rev. renders felt; but the verb, as Edwards correctly remarks, is not the generic term for emotion, though it may be used for what includes emotion. The reference here is to the earlier undeveloped exercise of the childish mind; a thinking which is not yet connected reasoning.

Look at the two passages which Poole mentions. Romans 8:5 says: “For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.” Christians and Non-Christians focus their minds on two different objects. 1 Corinthians 14:20 reads: “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.” What does Paul mean by “do not be children in your thinking.” He tells us in the rest of the verse. He wants them to be immature with regard to their experience of evil. With regard to that he wants them to have child-like innocence. But with regard to their thinking he wants the opposite. He wants them to be “perfect” the original says, but this is the common word used in the New Testament for maturity. Children are immature in the way they think. They do not think like mature adults. On this fact, Gill remarks:

I understood as a child; and so does he that understands all mysteries, in comparison of the enlightened and enlarged understandings of glorified saints; the people of God, who are in the highest form and class of understanding, in the present state of things, are but children in understanding; it is in the other world, when they are arrived to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, that they will in understanding be men:

The third contrast uses the word, reason. This is the Greek word from which we get the word, logic, and all the words which end in “ology.” It speaks of how one reasons or carefully and logically thinks through something. We laugh at our children because of the funny way they sometimes reason or think. Recently one of my grand-daughters was told by her Mom to go play outside in the sun. She complained, I do not like the sun. Many such funny things doth Molly Beth say because she reasons as a child. The fact is that children think or reason differently than adults. Gill says:

I thought, or “reasoned” as a child; whose thoughts are low and mean, and reasonings very weak; and so are the thoughts and reasonings of such as have all knowledge here below, in comparison of that perfect knowledge, those clear ideas, and strong reasonings of the spirits of just men above: but when I became a man, I put away childish things; childish talk, childish affections, and childish thoughts and reasonings; so when the saints shall be grown to the full age of Christ, and are become perfect men in him, tongues shall cease, prophecies shall fail, and knowledge vanish away; and in the room thereof, such conversation, understanding, and knowledge take place, as will be entirely suited to the manly state in glory.

By way of conclusion to our study of 1 Corinthians 13:11 we must certainly say that Paul understood there to be a very great difference between the understanding of children and the understanding of adults. At the very least, we have to say that this difference must be taken into account in assessing the spiritual condition of our children.

Ephesians 4:13-14

Ephesians 4:13-14 reads: “… until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.”

In this context Paul is speaking about the purposes for which Christ gave various gifts of ministry to the church. In verse 11 he speaks of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers.

This leads Paul to enlarge on the purpose or necessity of these gifts. The need for such gifts arises from the immaturity of the church’s understanding of spiritual things. The purpose of such gifts is to remedy that immaturity by bringing the church to a mature understanding of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God.

As in 1 Corinthians 13:11 so here Paul searches for an illustration of this maturing process. His mind once more goes to a very natural illustration. That illustration is children who need to mature in their understanding into adulthood.

But here Paul proceeds to speak of the danger in which both children and a child-like church find themselves. Verse 14 speaks of this danger: “tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” Children and child-like churches are in danger of being deceived because of the immaturity, weakness, and hence instability of their understandings. Simpson comments as follows:

Believers are to be children, yet not absolutely such. Certain qualities of the child they are to emulate; for, if destitute of its simplicity and guilelessness, they cannot possess true infancy of heart. But childish traits should be shunned as resolutely as childlike graces should be fostered. What is here censured is the fickleness of children’s volatile moods, shifting like a kaleidoscope, dazzled by the first glittering bauble or flimsy distraction that catches their eye, and liable to be beguiled by every siren ditty of allurement within earshot. How incongruous with “Christian hearts of oak” is this humorsome and ductile temper!

This reality points us to the difficulty of attributing stability and permanence to the affirmations of our children. Those child-like pronouncements and statements cannot be trusted to remain stable. There is an inherent instability and vulnerability to deception in children.

This is good to remember on the part of parents. They do not need to react in alarm when their five year old makes some heretical pronouncement about God or the Bible. They simply need to correct that pronouncement. It does not carry the same weight of permanence as that of an adult.

But another application of this natural instability of children is that their good commitments and proper decisions cannot be regarded with the same weight as those of adults. We may regard such commitments and decisions with encouragements, but we ought not attribute the same weight and stability to the commitments and decisions of a ten year old as we do to a twenty year old.

The application of this to our evaluation of the professions of faith by children seems clear. We should be encouraged by them. Certainly! But there should also be a certain reserve and caution about them which should make us refrain from trumpeting the triumph of the gospel far and wide!

John 9:18-23

18 The Jews then did not believe it of him, that he had been blind and had received sight, until they called the parents of the very one who had received his sight, 19 and questioned them, saying, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? Then how does he now see?” 20 His parents answered them and said, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; 21 but how he now sees, we do not know; or who opened his eyes, we do not know. Ask him; he is of age, he will speak for himself.” 22 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed Him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue. 23 For this reason his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”

The interesting thing about this passage is statement twice made by formerly blind man’s parents. Both in verse 21 and verse 23 they make the statement, “he is of age.” Then in both statements the natural result of being “of age” is stated. In verse 21 they conclude from this face that “he will speak for himself.” In verse 23 they simply add the practical consequence of his being “of age;” ask him they say. Clearly in their minds until they reach a certain age children are not able or have authority to speak for themselves.

I am not attributing any kind of inspiration to the blind man’s parents when they use these words. At the same time, they certainly are reflecting in some way a cultural norm which governed Jewish society at the time. There is a parallel statement in Hebrews 11:24-26 which appears to confirm the common sense idea that until they reach a certain age children are not able to speak for themselves.

24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.

Notice the assumption contained in verse 24: “when he had grown up.” It was then that he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter and chose to be identified with the people of God. The language of the text literally says, when he had become great. All the major English translations recognize that this is a reference to his maturation into adulthood. The NIV, RSV, and ESV all translate exactly as the NASB. The KJV translates, “when he was come to years.” The NKJV translates, “when he became of age.”

Thus, the idea of the blind man’s parents of coming to a certain age where one can speak for oneself is not a strange idea peculiar to them. It looks like a culture-wide norm. And does this not reflect something that has the force of a kind of natural law. Children cannot speak for themselves. Their parents must speak for them until they come of age. It seems to me that this notion has both natural law and special revelation behind it.

Now if that is the case, it is necessary to ask what age in Jewish society children became able to speak for themselves. There is a consensus about this among commentators.

John Gill remarks:

… he is of age; at man’s estate, as, with the Jews, one was, who was at the age of thirteen years, if he could produce the signs of puberty: and such an one was allowed a witness in any case, but not under this age; nor if he was arrived to it, if the above signs could not be produced (q). This man very likely was much older, as may be thought from the whole of his conduct, his pertinent answers, and just reasoning: wherefore his parents direct the Sanhedrin to him for an answer to their third question,

Barnes states:

He is of age – He is of sufficient age to give testimony. Among the Jews this age was fixed at thirteen years

Both Leon Morris and William Hendriksen confirm this interpretation saying that at 13 years and one day a boy was thought to be of age.

I also checked Jewish websites on this issue. [https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-age-requirement-for-barbat-mitzvah/] Here was a helpful statement about the Jewish teaching just prior to the time of the New Testament.

In rabbinic literature (primarily the Mishnah and Babylonian Talmud, with respective editorial dates of approximately 200 CE and 550 CE), the ages of 12 years and one day for girls and 13 years and one day for boys–the ages widely regarded traditionally as the threshold of adulthood–begin to take on significance.

Interestingly, they add these comments:

At this point, a 13-year-old boy is obligated to participate in public, religious fasts. Likewise any vows he might make are to be regarded as valid.

Two criteria are given for this chronological marker for boys: physical maturation and moral discernment. The first is reflected in the assumption that at about that age, pubic hair appears. “A boy who has grown two [pubic] hairs is subject to all the commandments in the Torah.”

But physical signs are not enough. He must attain a certain age as well. “From the point of his birth until he is 13, he is called a boy or a baby. Even if within this period he grows a couple of [pubic] hairs, these are not considered evidence [of maturation], but [only] a mole [with hairs].”

Obviously, I am not saying that such ancient Jewish teaching is authoritative for us. I am only saying that it sheds light on the embodiment in the New Testament of a clear distinction between childhood and adulthood. This Jewish teaching makes clear that children were not able to make certain adult decisions and commitments.

Acts 8:12

“But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.”

This passage takes us out of the realm of traditional Jewish practice and into the realm of authoritative Christian practice. What does it teach us?

It certainly does not deny that children were baptized. At the same time, in light of all that we have seen already in this message it is difficult not to find substantial significance in its report of Philip’s practice in Samaria. When we ask, Who were baptized?, the answer supplied by the text is believing men and women. And the words used for men and women here are the words which have for their normal meaning adult males and adult females.

While this is the only passage in Acts which speaks of the baptism of adult males and females, it is parallel to another statement in the Book of Acts. This statement tends to confirm the implications which I have drawn from it. Turn to Acts 5:14: “And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number …” Once more there is no mention here of children. It is adult males and adult females that are added to the number of the Jerusalem church. Such addition took place, of course, through baptism. Acts 2:41 is parallel: “So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.”

Thus, while the text does not deny that children were baptized, it is completely silent about that. And in the context of the well understood distinction between children and adults practiced in Jewish society and assumed in the New Testament, this silence is golden and instructive. It certainly points to the conclusion that baptism is for adults capable of making adult decisions. Children cannot and may not make such vows and covenants.

Section 2: A Scriptural Understanding of Church Membership

 I. There is very close biblical connection between baptism should and membership in the local church.

One of the major problems with much of the practice of baptizing children as it is practiced far and wide is this. It often ignores the connection between baptism and church membership. Your pastors are united in their belief that baptism and church membership ought not to be disconnected and that church membership ought to be a consequence of baptism. There is a close connection between baptism and membership in the local church because …

1—This is what the meaning or symbolism of baptism requires. Baptism symbolizes and makes visible the inward and spiritual realities of union with Christ Romans 6:1-4).  Union with Christ, however, involves participation in the body of Christ—the church (Romans 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 11:24, 27, 29; 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:22-23; 2:16; 3:6;4:4, 11, 12, 16; 5:23, 30; Col. 1:18, 24; 2:19; 3:15).  Union with Christ is, then, inseparable from or identical with union with the body of Christ, the church. Baptism, however, is the visible sign of union with Christ.  It cannot but be, then, the visible sign of union with His body—the church.  The universal church becomes visible only in the local church.  The local church is the visible, local expression of the body of Christ—the only appointed, visible, local expression of the body of Christ.  To become a visible Christian through baptism is to become a visible member of the body of Christ.  To become a member of the visible body of Christ is to become a member of the visible church.  To become a member of the visible church is to become a member of the local church.  Baptism=visible union with Christ=visible membership in the body of Christ=visible membership in the church=membership in the local church.  Thus, to disconnect baptism and the local church is to deny that baptism symbolizes visible union with Christ.  The glory of the local church is that it is the divinely appointed local, expression of the body of Christ.  To disconnect baptism from membership in the local church is to deny the glory of the local church.

2—This is what the Great Commission requires (Matt. 28:18-20). Baptists insist rightly that the order of the Great Commission requires that baptism be preceded by discipleship.  Often, however, they neglect to see that the Great Commission just as clearly requires that baptism be succeeded by instruction in the ordinances of Christ.  The school of Christ is the church.  It is in the context of the local church that the third part of the Great Commission is fulfilled (Acts 14:21-23).  It is to the local church first and foremost that pastor-teachers are given (Eph. 4:11-13).  It is just as contrary to the Great Commission and just as wrong to baptize disciples and not instruct them afterwards as it is to baptize those who are not disciples before.  Those baptized must be required to enroll in Christ’s school, that is, the local church.

3—This is what baptism’s identity as a church ordinance requires. Baptists rightly insist that only the church and its authorized representatives have a right to baptize.  Those originally charged to baptize were not all Christians promiscuously or individually, but the Apostles of Christ (Matt. 28:18-20) in their official capacity as those upon whose testimony the visible church was to be built (Matt. 16:16-18).  This means, however, that baptism is an ordinance of the visible church, and, thus, an ordinance under the authority of the church.  It is inconsistent and illogical to bestow a church ordinance on those who are not by this initiatory ordinance made members of the church.

4—Baptism confers the privilege of the Lord’s Table, a church ordinance under the discipline of the church. One of the pressing concerns of those who argue for the bestowal of baptism without undue delay on disciples is that such disciples might have the privilege of partaking of the Lord’s Supper.  Thus, those who argue in this fashion assume that the Lord’s Table requires the visible sign of baptism.  The reason, however, that the visible sign of baptism is required is just because the Lord’s Supper is the visible manifestation not only of our union with Christ, but of our union with His body, the church (1 Cor. 10:16-17).  Thus, to require baptism for partaking of the Lord’s Table is tacitly to admit that it is an ordinance of the visible church.  The local church is, however, the only appointed local expression of the visible church.  The key passage inseparably connects the Lord’s Table with the local church.  It is the church that gathers to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and the church that is despised by a wrong partaking (1 Cor. 11:17-22).  Those who are impenitent in sin should not be allowed to eat with the church (1 Cor. 5:11).  Thus, the Lord’s Supper is under the authority and discipline of the local church.  To allow that baptized non-members have a right to the Lord’s Table is, however, to adopt another theory of the Lord’s Table.  This theory must be that all baptized Christians (but not necessarily yet members of the church) are allowed to partake of the Lord’s Table on their own authority.  Either the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance and for church members.  Or the Lord’s Supper is given to non-church members and not a church ordinance.  These are the alternatives.  If the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance (as the Bible clearly teaches) and yet presumes baptism (as I and those with whom I arguing assume), then it must be that baptism and church membership are inseparably connected.

5—The New Testament assumes both that all Christians are baptized and that they are church members.  That is to say, the New Testament recognizes no class of Christians consisting of baptized non-church members. It is a simple and obvious fact that in passages like Romans 6:1-4 Paul assumes that all the Christians at Rome were baptized.  It is just as simple and clear that passages like Matthew 18:15-17; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Corinthians 1:2; and Phillipians 1:1 assume that all Christians are church members.  To disconnect baptism from church membership is to create a class of Christians who are baptized but not church members.  Quite simply, the New Testament knows of no such class of Christians.  In assuming that all Christians are both baptized and members of local churches, it teaches as clearly as one could wish that baptism and church membership are coincident.  It is, of course, true that exceptional circumstances exist.  In the New Testament and today there were those who as to their faith were genuine Christians who for a short period of time had not yet professed and made visible that faith by being baptized.  As a result of sin and all the irregularities that have developed because of it, there are Christians today who have been baptized and who are not at the moment members of churches.  This must not obscure for us the normative teaching of the New Testament that a professing Christian both is and ought to be both baptized and a church member.

6—This is what the order of Acts 2 requires. The order of Acts 2:41-42 is very clear and in the absence of any clear teaching to the contrary sets a precedent for us.  The order is welcoming the Word, baptism, and addition to the church.  Granted the words, to the church, are not verbally present, but they are necessarily implied.  This is so, first of all, because verse 42 speaks of the public life of the church with the ordinances of teaching, the Lord’s Table, prayer meetings, and giving.  This is so also because in Acts 5:14 the language of being added is again used, but in that context (Acts 5:10-14) it is clear that it speaks of being joined to the church.  This is so also because the language of Acts 2:41 and 47 speaks of addition to an existing society.  That addition was clearly to the 120 disciples spoken of in Acts 1.  This 120 was clearly the original church

7—It is neither safe nor principled for new Christians to be allowed to be without a church home. The one baptized is by the very fact of baptism being an initiatory ordinance usually a very new Christian.  Such Christians above all others need the care of a local church.  Such Christians according to the New Testament have a duty to be joined to the local church.  Such Christians, however, may like children be the least able to see what is both good for them and required of them.  For these reasons local churches must insist that such Christians when they are baptized join themselves to the church.  It is not safe for the new believer to have no church home.  It is not principled for the church to baptize someone who refuses to join the church when it is their clear responsibility.

8—In the Book of Acts we know of no separate ordinance by which baptized Christians became church members.  In other words, it appears that in every local situation a church was created by the simple act of the baptism of disciples. There is no record anywhere in the Book of Acts or in the New Testament of any ordinance, rite, or ceremony by which New Testament churches are formed. This is an extraordinary fact.  Given what we know about the importance of the local church in the New Testament, how can it accounted for?  I believe that it may and must probably be accounted for by understanding that the very act of baptism not only visibly joined the believer to Christ, but also visibly joined the believer to Christ’s body the church.  The church was created in every local situation where believers were baptized.  The very act of baptism associated them with one another in local churches.  Of course, in our day the pristine situation of the New Testament does not exist.  Still, however, it remains true that where a biblical missionary goes out from a local church into a pioneer situation and baptizes believers a local church is begun.  In our day because of the confusion and irregularities created by sin and doctrinal error, it may be necessary to have constituting services, covenants, constitutions, and confessions of the local church.  These things must not disguise or obscure the fact that baptism originally and truly introduced believers into the local church.

9–There is no proof that any believer was not baptized into the local church. The Ethiopian Eunuch is often cited as an example of someone who was not baptized into a local church.  His baptism is then made the precedent for overturning everything else that the New Testament teaches about the coincidence of baptism and church membership.  Several important objections must be made against this use of the passage.  First, if the Ethiopian Eunuch indeed was not baptized into a local church, it was only because no such church existed in Ethiopia.  This was clearly an exceptional circumstance that must not be made into a normative principle of the church or applied to situations where a local church does exist.  Second, it is not, in fact, clear that the Ethiopian Eunuch was not baptized into a local church.  This assumption on the part of interpreters is nowhere stated in the passage.  It is possible and even probable given the teaching of the rest of the New Testament that he was baptized into the membership of the church in Jerusalem or that he was the first member of the church in Ethiopia.  One thing is for sure this is no instance of happy-go-lucky evangelism where believers are made and then left to fend for themselves.  We cannot attribute such a practice to Philip or the church in Jerusalem.

10–The only alternative to saying that Christians are baptized into the visible and local church is to say that they are baptized into the invisible and universal church.  This is to misconceive the relation between the universal and local church. At bottom a failure to see the connection between baptism and church membership is rooted in a failure to see that the local church is the only appointed, visible expression of the universal church.  It is rooted in a misconception of the relation between the universal and local church.  In 1 Timothy 3:15 it is plainly the universal church that is described in the language “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”  Just as clearly when Timothy is instructed as to how he ought to conduct himself in that church in the ordering of its public meetings and the setting apart of its officers (1 Tim. 2:1-3:15) and in his own ministry (1 Tim. 4:1ff.), the local church at Ephesus is viewed as the visible expression of that church.  It is impossible, then, to argue that baptism joins one (visibly) to the universal church without seeing that at one and the same time this must make one a member of the local church where one is baptized.  So to argue is to misconceive the relation between what we call the universal and local church.

II. There is no Special Church Membership for children mentioned in the New Testament.

Assuming, then, that baptism must be into the membership of the church, a second observation is crucial. There is no distinction mentioned in the New Testament which allows for a different kind of membership for children as opposed to adults. To put this another way, there is no split-level church membership revealed in the New Testament. You may search the New Testament far and wide and not find such a distinction. There are simply church members. There are not adult church members and children church members. And this fact is reflected in our church’s constitution. There is no provision for a special and lesser church membership for children.

The conclusion is inevitable. If we baptize children, it must be into church membership. Baptizing children into church membership confers on them all the privileges and liabilities of church membership.

If children are baptized, they must be given all the privileges of church membership. They must be given the privilege of taking the Lord’s Supper. They must be given the privilege of participating and voting in church business meetings. This must include voting and participating in church discipline.

But children also become liable to the liabilities of church membership. This means the reality and possibility of church discipline. It may seem very sweet, nice, and cutesy to baptize that 7or 8 year old, but you are also placing on them the possibility of church discipline when they are 17 or 18. Is this something that it is right or reasonable to put upon an 7 or 8 year old child?

Section 3: A Proper Doctrine of Ecclesiastical Authority

Here is my thesis under this heading. The church in general and pastors in particular are the gatekeepers of baptism and church membership. You may have noticed if you have been attending here for any length of time that we vote on the applications for membership of all prospective. If they need to be baptized, that vote includes whether we should baptize them or not.

This practice is not simply a mere tradition. It is a biblical conviction based on the fact that membership in the church requires the consent of the church. According to the New Testament the consent of the church is necessary to exclude someone from the church. Logically, then, it follows that the consent of the church is necessary if someone is to be included in the church’s membership. Cf. Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 2 Corinthians 2:6-8.

But I think you will agree that where a church has elders, it is their responsibility to lead the church both in recognition of new members and in their being baptizing. This, it seems to me, is the necessary implication of their being the church’s elders, pastors, and overseers. Cf. especially 1 Thessalonians 5:12-14 and Hebrews 13:17.

Where am I going with this? Only a credible profession of faith provides the warrant baptism and church membership. Our Confession teaches what is surely the biblical doctrine of this when it says:

The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the gospel.

The question is this. Who decides on the credibility of such a willing profession of faith? Well, the implication for our subject is that it is not the family or parents who decide who should be baptized. It is certainly not the person requesting baptism who makes that decision. It is the church led by its pastors who makes these decisions. The church and its pastors must judge the child’s profession to be credible. They may not simply take the word of parents for this. Of course, the perspective of the parents is one factor—but it cannot be the only or decisive factor.

This is why—by the way—I am against in most cases the more and more common practice of allowing fathers to baptize their own children. It sends an entirely wrong message about who is in charge of evaluating the credible profession of faith of an applicant for baptism and church membership.

Section 4: A Right Rejection of Cultural Assumptions

It is very hard to get outside of the cultural norms to which we are accustomed. These norms form the assumed and uncritically adopted context of our judgments about many things. In my view and opinion it is such an uncritically adopted context which bedevils and corrupts our approach to Scripture in the case of the baptism of children.

To see this, I want you all to turn to the key passage which speaks about how we should view teenagers as opposed to adults and children. I think the consideration of this passage will be instructive. I am sure you all know what it is. So please turn there.

What? You mean you cannot find it? You do know what passage I have in mind?

That is because there is no such passage. The Bible speaks of minor children in many passages. It also speaks of adults (men and women). There is, however, no passage which speaks of teenagers as an in-between category of people who are neither adults nor children. In the Bible you are either a child who cannot speak for himself; or you are an adult who can. In our society we think of children, teens, and adults. This is a way of thinking alien to the Bible.

Could the modern invention of “teenhood” be the source of many of our problems with regard to the issue of baptizing children? Is this the reason for our confusion? I think it is very possible.

Here is why. When someone says that baptism and church membership should be deferred till adulthood, we automatically of late teens or early 20’s. In this reaction there is the assumption that teens are not adults. We think of 16 when you can drive. We think of 18 when you can vote and be tried as an adult. But the Bible did not think in these terms when it spoke of adulthood.

In Jewish society adulthood became a reality around the ages of 12 for girls and 13 for boys. Now granted because of the way our society thinks and acts and delays adulthood, it may be true that many 12 and 13 year olds are still children. I am not denying that. I am only saying that our cultural assumptions may be very wrong about this issue of teenhood.

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.

Shall We Baptize Children? Part 1: Initial Reflections | Sam Waldron

by Sam Waldron | Jul 3, 2025 | Ecclesiology, Historical Theology, Practical Theology, Systematic Theology

*Editor’s Note: The following blog series titled “Shall We Baptize Children” was originally delivered by Pastor Sam Waldron to his congregation, Grace Reformed Baptist Church (Owensboro, KY), as Sunday School lessons to help his congregation better understand Baptism. The view expressed by Dr. Waldron in this series is not the uniform position of all professors of CBTS nor the official view of the Seminary. 

To read part 2 of this series, click here.

To read part 3 of this series, click here.

Preface

For several years your pastors have discussed the issue of the baptism of children. We have especially wondered when the time was coming when we might have to give this church which we love so much systematic instruction on this issue. This is a difficult and somewhat controversial issue. Personally, I have been reluctant to take this matter public in the past. Yet with so many young families and children now in the church, I with my fellow pastors have become convinced that can no longer refrain from giving specific guidance to you on this issue. I do not claim to say everything exactly as they might if they were preaching on this issue. Yet I can tell you that we are of one mind on this issue and that what I am teaching I am teaching on behalf of us all as pastors.

Section 1: The Present Controversy

Some of you may be entirely unaware that there is any serious difference of opinion among “Reformed Baptists” on this issue. Perhaps you have never questioned the common practice of baptizing children. Perhaps you may be surprised that anybody of any stature should question such a practice. That is why I think you need to know that there are well-known Baptist pastors of Reformed views that have rejected the practice of baptizing children.

Let me give you just two examples of such churches and pastors. I think very highly of Mark Dever and Nine Marks for their publications which embody highly biblical views of church practice. Dr. Dever holds the view that only young people who have reached the age of 18 should be baptized. This is the practice of Capitol Hill Baptist Church. Closer to home Pastors Al Martin and Greg Nichols when they were pastors together of Trinity Baptist Church of Montville, NJ led that church to the same practice by their teaching on this issue.

On the other hand, many of us were previously members of a church whose founding pastor wrote a booklet defending and arguing for the baptism of children.

Thus, there is a difference of opinion on this issue. You need to know that. And …

I suppose that one of my reasons for wanting you to know about this difference of opinion among Reformed Baptists is that so some of you will not simply dismiss the idea that only adults should be baptized as some wacko, fringe idea. It is not! Now let me say very clearly that I am not out to defend the practice of either Capitol Hill or Trinity Baptist. But I do want you to know that such views are not the marginal views of some hyper-Reformed cage-stage Calvinistic pastors.

Section 2: The Personal Chronicle

We live in the post-modern age. One of the things that post-modernism emphasizes is that we are all deeply enmeshed in our own culture’s way of looking at things. Post-modernism believes that our thinking is irresistibly embedded in the societal views in which we have been raised. Now, of course, we reject such ideas.

But one good result of this way of thought is the idea that we all need to be perfectly honest about things in our past experience that may have deeply influenced the way we view things. This has had some good effects. When I was at Kentucky Wesleyan teaching, my boss told me that this gave me the right and even the obligation to give my personal experience of the gospel to the students. I did that in my first class every semester.

And I think it will be useful to you that I tell you some of the things in my experience that have influenced my views of this matter. I have divided my remarks on this issue into two points: my  personal experience and my pastoral experience.

My Personal Experience

Here is the first thing. I was first “baptized” when I was seven years old. I spent many years after that struggling with assurance of salvation. After coming to a prevailing assurance of salvation, I then spent many years struggling with whether my baptism at age seven was valid. I was finally “baptized again” when I was 26—about the same time I became a pastor in the church in Grand Rapids in 1977 and where I served for 24 years.

My wife and had a very similar experience of being baptized as a child. She later questioned that baptism, and was baptized at a later age as an adult.

Our experience, of course, influenced us as parents. As a consequence, none of our children were baptized as small children. All of our children were baptized in their mid to late teens. We have no regrets about this at all even though one of our children was probably a Christian from an early age and even though another of our children was probably not a Christian and was baptized again a few years ago.

My Pastoral Experience

But let me continue this candid revelation of my experience by telling you about my experience as one of the elders of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids.

The first thing I remember on this subject goes back to when I was a very new pastor in the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids. I remember vividly a new member of our church in Grand Rapids telling me that he was convinced that his three-year-old child was a Christian and urging me to baptize him. Needless to say, this seemed a little—more than a little—”far out” to me.

Later, but still in the early years of that church we had no qualms about baptizing children. We actually baptized four children at about age 9. A few years later we had to exercise church discipline on every single one of those young people.

This sad experience led us to question the common practice of baptizing children. About the same time, we became aware of the views and practice of Trinity Baptist Church in New Jersey. In the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids their teaching led us to make the change to adult only baptism. We did not restrict baptism to 18-year-olds, but we did restrict it to those young people whom the pastors considered to be adult.

Many years later when God led us here to Owensboro we came to a church which practiced the baptism of children. When I came to Owensboro, I had imbibed some doubts about some of the arguments for adult only baptism which I had heard. My doubts were sufficient to make me comfortable submitting to the practice of our new church. I did insist when I helped write the constitution of that church that children had to be baptized into the church.

Since 2013 when we removed from that church, and I became a part of the church and the eldership here at Grace, we have practiced neither adult baptism only or child baptism, but have generally followed a conservative practice without settling on or teaching either view. Thus, I have been a pastor of three different Reformed Baptist churches—each with a different practice on this issue. If you want to call me wishy-washy on this issue, I suppose I cannot fault you.

So what are you saying, Pastor Sam? Should this have any authority with us at all on this issue? My answer is NO! Absolutely none. I am simply trying to be honest about my past experience. The point is honesty not authority. This matter must be determined—this questioned must be answered—by sola scriptura and not at all by my experience.

Still, I hope I am not deceiving myself when I hope that telling my own story will in other respects help you as we come to consider this subject. Perhaps at least you will allow that I have had to think about this issue a very long time and from a lot of different perspectives. Perhaps this will help you listen carefully and, I hope, with a teachable heart to what I say to you about this subject from the Scriptures.

Section 3: The Premised Convictions

The last thing I want to do in this first message or lesson on the baptism of children is to review five convictions which are my premises to or assumptions about this discussion. As premised convictions I do not regard these things as in need of lengthy proof or discussion. I believe you share these convictions with me. It will be good, however, to briefly state those premises and briefly show their scriptural basis. Here is the first one:

First Conviction: The answer to the question is revealed and regulated by the Word of God.

I have already alluded to this first conviction when I said that neither my or your experience is authoritative in this matter. On the question of the baptism of children our answer must be based on sola scriptura. We must go “to the law and to the testimony” in order to discover the divine guidance we need to have with regard to the baptism of children. Please turn to just one passage—it is the classic passage—which teaches that the Scriptures reveal and regulate the answer to the question of the baptism of children. It is 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” The man of God is equipped for every good work by the diverse uses of Scripture. The emphasis is clear “adequate, equipped for every good work.” Thus, we ask, Is properly baptizing the disciples of Christ a good work? Yes, it is according to the Great Commission something Christ commands us to do. Then we must conclude that the Scriptures are adequate to equip us for the good work of baptizing and, there, adequate to direct us with regard to the question of the baptism of children.

Second Conviction: The Scriptures teach the Baptism of Disciples Alone and the Wrongness of Infant Baptism.

Once more my goal is not to engage in extensive proof of this. Believer’s baptism is, after all, a confessional commitment of this church. Let me simply turn you to one of the many passages which teach believer’s baptism. I choose Acts 8:12. It reads: “But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.” When were the Samaritans baptized? The text is clear: “when they believed.” Who were baptized? Those who believed were baptized “men and women alike.” There is no mention of their infants being baptized. There is not even any mention of children being baptized. The language is clear. It is men and women who were baptized; and the Greek words here mean specifically designate adult males and adult females.

It has been observed—and I think correctly—that there really is very little difference between baptizing small children and infant baptism. When child evangelism parachurch groups can get 90+% of conversions in their child evangelism, one really needs to question how much difference there is between baptizing infants and small children.

The Third Conviction: The Scriptures teach that all Credibly Professing Believers should be baptized.

Here my distinct point is that it is not merely permission to be baptized, if you want to be, that believing in Christ gives you. Baptism is a duty for all credibly professing believers in Christ. Some appear to teach that baptism is a kind of luxury item or accessory of the Christina life. It is not. It is a duty for all credibly professing believers. Here my one text is found in Acts 10:44-48:

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

The plainly converted Gentiles were ordered—the word may also be translated, commanded—to be baptized. It was not an option. it was an obligation. Baptism is the appointed covenantal expression of faith in Christ in the New Covenant.

Fourth Conviction: The Scriptures teach that children may be converted to Christ and saved.

Questioning whether minor children should be baptized sometimes creates a reaction that sounds like this: Don’t you believe children can be saved? This forces me to say that it is one my premised convictions that God does save children and sometimes even small children. I even imagine that there are elect infants who die in infancy that are saved. But these beliefs and hopes are not the same as saying that we should baptize such children or infants. All those who refrain from baptizing children—as far as I know—believe that God sometimes saves small children and infants.

Nevertheless, though this is my conviction, it is not quite as simple as you might think to prove that God saves children from Scripture. Here let me point you to one Old Testament and one New Testament example.

• The Old Testament Example—Samuel

It appears that my namesake, Samuel, was converted as a small boy. Turn to several connected statements in 1 Samuel. 1 Samuel 2:26 reads:

“Now the boy Samuel was growing in stature and in favor both with the LORD and with men.” 1 Samuel 3:7, speaking of Samuel as a small boy, adds: “Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, nor had the word of the LORD yet been revealed to him.” The succeeding context records, however, how Samuel responded obediently to Eli and the Lord’s call. It records his faithful following of the Lord and his faithful prophesying. It appears the God’s call of Samuel to salvation and to prophesying happened at about the same time. As a young boy Samuel came to know the Lord. 1 Samuel 3:19 says this: “Thus Samuel grew and the LORD was with him and let none of his words fail.”

This language of knowing the Lord speaks of someone being saved. Listen to three parallel texts.

1 Samuel 2:12 Now the sons of Eli were worthless men; they did not know the LORD Judges 2:10 All that generation also were gathered to their fathers; and there arose another generation after them who did not know the LORD, nor yet the work which He had done for Israel.

Jeremiah 31:34 “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Thus, Samuel coming to know the Lord as a small boy means that he was saved as a small boy.

• The New Testament Example—Ephesians 6:1

The text reads: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.”  Notice two things. First, Ephesians 6:1 addresses young children. That is the meaning of the word, children, here. It is children who have parents charged to bring them up in the Lord. Second, it calls them to follow gospel motives in obeying their parents. They must obey “in the Lord.” All this assumes that at least some children listening to this letter read were converted or could be converted and influenced by gospel.

Fifth Conviction: Baptism must be into the membership of a local church.

It is the practice of our church only to baptize people who are or are becoming members of a local church. If any of you want to see a more lengthy argument for this, just ask me to send you my essay entitled, Ten Reasons Why Baptism Must Be into the Membership of a Local Church.

I only have time to show you one passage teaching this conviction. It is found in Acts 2:41: “So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.” Added! Added to what? The whole preceding context makes clear that they were added to the church consisting of 120 disciples mentioned in Acts 1:15. But the succeeding context is also clear. Acts 2:42 tells us that those baptized continued as active members of the church and its worship: “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”

Consequent Exhortations

Children, should not think they are too young to be saved! Samuel came to know and serve the Lord when he was just a boy. Other children may too. Your children also may have the wonderful privilege of knowing and serving the Lord from your youth.

Children, must not think that they can worry about being saved when you are older! I do not know how children could have received that impression in this church, from these pastors, or from this pulpit! How could anyone ever think that you do not need to worry about being saved until you are older? No one came to that conclusion here. Do not think that you can put off being saved or worrying about this matter until you are older. I began to be concerned for my soul when I was three years old. I was right to be concerned. If children are old enough to understand what I am saying to you right now, then they are old enough to be saved. They are also old enough to be lost forever if they die in your sins. Whatever the Bible teaches about when they should be baptized, it is clear that they should seek salvation right now—here—today!

Church, whatever we practice about this issue—even if we conclude that we should not baptize children—we must never allow our children to think that salvation is for when they are older. Suppose we conclude that only adults should be baptized. Such a conclusion would not be and never would be an excuse for lethargy, complacency, or laziness with regard to the salvation of our children.

Church, we must believe that the Bible is able to guide us on even an issue as difficult as this one! Some of you may be ready to say: Well, if learned pastors disagree about this issue, then how can I ever be certain? Or you may use the “great men of God” excuse. Well, if great men of God have differed, then how can we ever get this right. Don’t go there! Learned pastors have blind-spots. Great men of God have been terrible husbands and fathers. Let the Word of God be true; and every man a liar. The Scriptures are sufficient and alone sufficient to guide us in every good work including the good work of a being a thoroughly biblical church! The Scriptures are able to make clear whether we should baptize 6 year old Jimmy, 9 year old Sara, 11 year old Matthew, or 13 year old Barbara! But you will not find the answers—you will not even search for the answers—unless you first believe in the sufficiency of the Scriptures to guide us in this and every religious duty.

The gold miner will only spend years panning for gold and digging for gold if he believes that there is gold “in them thar hills.” The riches of Scripture, similarly, are only for those who begin by believing that they are there and then search for them as hid treasure. On this and every other issue: only believing leads to searching and only searching leads to finding. It is because you really do not believe that the Scriptures can show you the answer you need on some issue or other that you do not search for and then find the answer!

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.