What do you think?
Rate this book
Basics of the Reformed Faith
By Bryan Chapell Why Do We Baptize Infants? (Basics of the Faith) (Basics of the Reformed Faith) [Paperback]
Biblical and pastoral, simple and accessible, this booklet explains in a nontechnical style why we should baptize the infants of believing parents. Chapell also shows pastors how to administer the sacrament in ways that are meaningful and helpful for their churches.
Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
6 people are currently reading
154 people want to read
About the author
Bryan Chapell
64 books85 followersBryan Chapell is the president of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri, the denominational seminary of the Presbyterian Church in America. He began teaching at Covenant in 1984 after ten years in pastoral ministry. Chapell has a BSJ from Northwestern University, an MDiv from Covenant Theological Seminary, and a PhD in speech communication from Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
Before becoming president in 1994, he served for six years as vice president for academics and dean of faculty. He is a speaker in churches and conferences around the country, preaching and lecturing on topics including grace, marriage, and journalism. Chapell's online broadcast ministry, Living Christ 360, contains additional resources in his areas of expertise.
Before becoming president in 1994, he served for six years as vice president for academics and dean of faculty. He is a speaker in churches and conferences around the country, preaching and lecturing on topics including grace, marriage, and journalism. Chapell's online broadcast ministry, Living Christ 360, contains additional resources in his areas of expertise.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
Read
August 20, 2024I got baptized at 17 so like does that count?
Helpful book as to why infant baptism has legitimacy. Personally this is a topic that I can go back and forth on but this book was helpful in gaining more insight. Quick and easy read that I would recommend. Cromwell you might be baptized as an infant so I hope you’re ready big dog
Helpful book as to why infant baptism has legitimacy. Personally this is a topic that I can go back and forth on but this book was helpful in gaining more insight. Quick and easy read that I would recommend. Cromwell you might be baptized as an infant so I hope you’re ready big dog
March 13, 2023
Is it cheating to have a 35 page book be added to my yearly reading challenge?
Read
September 15, 2021Good book to read, especially for people who don’t understand infant baptism (like me).
January 1, 2023
I grew up Baptist & now consider myself a non-denominational Christian with a “Baptist head and a charismatic heart.” I have several friends who are Presbyterian, and our kids have attended an excellent mid-week program at a Presbyterian church the past couple years, so I felt it was time for me to study up on why Presbyterians and many denominations baptize infants, but my background and current church do not.
I found this little book insightful, and it most definitely answered my question as to why some denominations (specifically Presbyterians) baptize infants, but I’m still not convinced this is the biblical way—although I’m now more inclined to say it’s actually not clear in Scripture, as the book gave some compelling evidence in favor of infant baptism.
Basically, I need to study the Scripture on this topic more myself now.
Of note:
-I had no idea that infant circumcision in the OT is a major reason for infant baptism in NT/post-NT times…
-Presby baptism of infants seems to accomplish to exact same as Baptist child dedication…but is infant baptism more biblical? I still don’t know. I thought I knew before (in favor of dedication, which we did with our kids), but this book has opened my eyes to needing to study more.
Notable quotes:
“No sacrament automatically creates or transmits the grace of salvation.”
“No mere ritual will save anyone.”
The above quotes abolish the assumption that parents baptize infants in order to secure their salvation. Surely some parents must operate under this false assumption, but this book clearly states that’s not the case-at least for those in the Presbyterian church. The argument of baptism giving one a false sense of security when it comes to salvation is what was used to teach against infant baptism in my church upbringing.
“It is possible, even common, for the children of Christian parents never to know a day that they do not believe that Jesus is their Savior and Lord.” <—This quote is in direct contrast to Baptist teachings that require a “moment” of salvation.
“In years of maturity such children must still affirm personal faith.” <—Presbyterians seem to differentiate between children growing up and “affirming” salvation, whereas Baptist children grow up and “decide” on their own if they want to follow Christ.
“There was not necessarily a definitive moment when a child made a life-altering decision to follow the Lord.” <—This is in direct contrast to what the Baptist church teaches; however, I saw this concept abused in the Baptist church (not my own but in my Baptist high school) where children who were saved were manipulated and shamed into being “re-saved” (even though Baptists technically don’t believe in losing salvation) if they didn’t recall being “scared of hell” at the moment of salvation.
Short but meaty and interesting read indeed!
I found this little book insightful, and it most definitely answered my question as to why some denominations (specifically Presbyterians) baptize infants, but I’m still not convinced this is the biblical way—although I’m now more inclined to say it’s actually not clear in Scripture, as the book gave some compelling evidence in favor of infant baptism.
Basically, I need to study the Scripture on this topic more myself now.
Of note:
-I had no idea that infant circumcision in the OT is a major reason for infant baptism in NT/post-NT times…
-Presby baptism of infants seems to accomplish to exact same as Baptist child dedication…but is infant baptism more biblical? I still don’t know. I thought I knew before (in favor of dedication, which we did with our kids), but this book has opened my eyes to needing to study more.
Notable quotes:
“No sacrament automatically creates or transmits the grace of salvation.”
“No mere ritual will save anyone.”
The above quotes abolish the assumption that parents baptize infants in order to secure their salvation. Surely some parents must operate under this false assumption, but this book clearly states that’s not the case-at least for those in the Presbyterian church. The argument of baptism giving one a false sense of security when it comes to salvation is what was used to teach against infant baptism in my church upbringing.
“It is possible, even common, for the children of Christian parents never to know a day that they do not believe that Jesus is their Savior and Lord.” <—This quote is in direct contrast to Baptist teachings that require a “moment” of salvation.
“In years of maturity such children must still affirm personal faith.” <—Presbyterians seem to differentiate between children growing up and “affirming” salvation, whereas Baptist children grow up and “decide” on their own if they want to follow Christ.
“There was not necessarily a definitive moment when a child made a life-altering decision to follow the Lord.” <—This is in direct contrast to what the Baptist church teaches; however, I saw this concept abused in the Baptist church (not my own but in my Baptist high school) where children who were saved were manipulated and shamed into being “re-saved” (even though Baptists technically don’t believe in losing salvation) if they didn’t recall being “scared of hell” at the moment of salvation.
Short but meaty and interesting read indeed!
May 5, 2022
Oops. Might be pro-infant baptism now...
Very well laid out arguments.
Very well laid out arguments.
January 8, 2016
Very good for what it is — a short pamphlet for Presbyterian church members (and other paedobaptists). Still have a few questions, but obviously I wasn't expecting all of my objections to be answered in such a short treatment. However, it certainly gave a decent overview.
October 27, 2016
Fantastic little booklet clarifying God's everlasting promise to his covenant people.
December 11, 2018
A concise and straightforward explanation of the Reformed (and specifically Presbyterian) position on infant baptism. A good read to understand the Biblical and theological basis for paedobaptism.
December 1, 2025
Concise and straight to the point. Definitely helped me understand a baptism perspective that I did not grow up with. I appreciated that it was more biblically based rather than solely church tradition.
I wouldn’t say that I am convinced that infant baptism is more biblical, but I can sympathize with why it is important to certain denominations.
I wouldn’t say that I am convinced that infant baptism is more biblical, but I can sympathize with why it is important to certain denominations.
August 21, 2012
The Bible is one book with one Savior, one people and one church. The children of believers have always received the sign of salvation, even while unsaved; it was circumcision in the Old and Baptism in the New. While the signs have changed the administration of them to the children of believers has not been repealed in the New. As a matter of fact Peter reiterated the Abrahamic Covenant administration on the day of Pentecost when he announced baptism. The promise is for us and our children. Baptists object because there is no explicit command in the NT. Presbyterians say God already commanded we place the sign of circumcision on our unbelieving children. According to Col 2:11-12 the NT sign of the covenant, baptism, acts in the same way as circumcision did, by pointing to regeneration, salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. So even though the sign has changed the command carries over. That is why Peter reiterated the Abrahamic covenant slogan of to you and your children during the command to be baptized that was uttered to Abraham when circumcision was given. The numerous household baptisms of the NT reflect that the adminsitration of the covenant sign to believers and their children has not been repealed but rather confirmed. The burden of proof is on baptists to show Gods covenant people are to no longer give the sign of faith to their children.
August 3, 2019
I so wish someone had suggested this incredible book back when I was struggling to understand paedobaptism! I had to read so many books to understand what this booklet effectively conveys in just 30 pages. I will definitely be recommending to friends and family who still misunderstand this profound, biblical truth.
November 26, 2012
A Baptist can't give three stars to a book, even a good one, arguing for infant baptism. But if all I were evaluating was clarity and brevity, Chapell might actually get four stars. His thesis is simple: "We baptize infants because we believe that the Bible teaches us to do so." (5)
Chapell begins by explaining the "covenant of faith" (20) God made with Abraham and arguing for its continuing validity:
Just as Old Testament Jewish families were told to give their sons a sign of the covenant at birth—circumcision—New Testament Christian families are to baptize their children "as a seal … indicat[ing] the visible pledge of God that when the conditions of his covenant [are] met, the promised blessings [will] apply." (15) So infant baptism does not eradicate original sin; the "ordinary condition remain[s] that these children must ultimately express their own faith in Christ in order to reap the full blessings of the covenant." (14)
Chapell freely admits that "we who believe in infant baptism must confess that the lack of any specific example of infant baptism in the New Testament is a strong counterweight to our position." (15) He argues, however, that the New Testament never abrogates the Old Testament practice of including children (in some diminished sense) in the covenant.
Chapell explains that individualistic Western Christians have a very different worldview from that of ancient Jews: we simply don't assume as they did "the principle of representation by the head of the household." (10) This biblical principle, he argues, is "foreign to our thought today…. Our lack of familiarity with this principle is one of the reasons why our individualistic culture finds it so difficult to accept the covenant-family principles and practices of Scripture." (18)
And Chapell has some passages on his side: "When we read the New Testament accounts of baptism, every person identified as having a household present at his or her conversion also had the entire household baptized." (17, emphasis original) He cites the Philippian jailer, Lydia, Stephanas, and probably Crispus (cf. Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14).
Chapell does pay attention to the issue of mode—he argues from various New Testament passages that baptism "involves a ceremonial cleansing in which the amount of liquid may vary according to the nature of the occasion." (21) Chapell's point here is that there are difficulties in arguing that immersion is the only proper mode, so one should not go further and conclude that babies are inappropriate candidates for baptism simply because no mother would like her baby to be dunked. ("Moms and dads do not have to worry about drowning their newborns in order to honor God's covenant." [24])
Chapell very clearly communicates that infant baptism does not guarantee future salvation. "No sacrament automatically creates or transmits the grace of salvation…. No mere ritual will save anyone." (24) So why baptize children? "Because God makes covenantal promises to believers and to their children. In baptism we honor God by marking out and acting on the promises that reflect his grace both in blessing parents who act in devotion to God and in blessing the child being devoted to him in covenantal faith…. In the sacrament of baptism, we as parents demonstrate our commitment to be faithful stewards of the precious gift of a child's soul that God grants us to nurture for a season of life." (24–25)
Chapell's comments on raising children in the Christian community contained some newer thoughts for me, and they did hit home:
I won't rehash all the classic Baptist reasons for rejecting Chapell's argument; those can be found elsewhere. I'll just make a few observations:
1. Chapell left me a little unclear on what promises exactly God makes to covenant children. What benefits flow to baptized babies that kids in credobaptist churches (like mine) don't get?
2. However, his thoughts on how we treat children who have not yet made a profession of personal faith (and who, of course, have not yet had time to demonstrate mature faith and lasting spiritual growth), were sobering for me. Infant baptism appears to have a strength here, giving account theologically for something we all do but can't justify. How many Christian parents carefully their kids to pray and then insist in a theological debate that God does not hear the prayers of unregenerated people? This is an issue I wish I had more clarity on myself, that I've been thinking about for a good while.
3. The passages that mention families (and couches!) being baptized can all plausibly be used for either side of the debate. They don't tend to decide it for anyone in my experience. What decides the issue for me—the reason I myself am a Baptist—is actually the precious New Covenant passage of Jeremiah 31. The covenant in which the church now partakes is one in which people will not have to exhort one another to "Know the Lord" (Jer. 31:34). Every member of the covenant already does. I don't want to confuse my children by making them think they are automatically in any sense covenant members, and I don't see Jeremiah 31 giving a third class of "potential covenant members." You either know the Lord or you don't. Neither does my position require, I think, that my kids make a memorable "decision for Christ" on a specific day. That may happen, or their experience of spiritual birth may appear (on the outside) to be more gradual. That, I think, was my experience (it's a little hard to read this many years on).
Chapell begins by explaining the "covenant of faith" (20) God made with Abraham and arguing for its continuing validity:
A key concept in the New Testament is that all of God's people (Jew or Gentile—past or present) are blessed in accordance with the covenant (i.e., promise of blessing) that God made with Abraham…. The "everlasting covenant" that God made with Abraham (Gen. 17:7) continues to be in effect and continues to cover us. (7)
Just as Old Testament Jewish families were told to give their sons a sign of the covenant at birth—circumcision—New Testament Christian families are to baptize their children "as a seal … indicat[ing] the visible pledge of God that when the conditions of his covenant [are] met, the promised blessings [will] apply." (15) So infant baptism does not eradicate original sin; the "ordinary condition remain[s] that these children must ultimately express their own faith in Christ in order to reap the full blessings of the covenant." (14)
Chapell freely admits that "we who believe in infant baptism must confess that the lack of any specific example of infant baptism in the New Testament is a strong counterweight to our position." (15) He argues, however, that the New Testament never abrogates the Old Testament practice of including children (in some diminished sense) in the covenant.
Chapell explains that individualistic Western Christians have a very different worldview from that of ancient Jews: we simply don't assume as they did "the principle of representation by the head of the household." (10) This biblical principle, he argues, is "foreign to our thought today…. Our lack of familiarity with this principle is one of the reasons why our individualistic culture finds it so difficult to accept the covenant-family principles and practices of Scripture." (18)
And Chapell has some passages on his side: "When we read the New Testament accounts of baptism, every person identified as having a household present at his or her conversion also had the entire household baptized." (17, emphasis original) He cites the Philippian jailer, Lydia, Stephanas, and probably Crispus (cf. Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14).
Chapell does pay attention to the issue of mode—he argues from various New Testament passages that baptism "involves a ceremonial cleansing in which the amount of liquid may vary according to the nature of the occasion." (21) Chapell's point here is that there are difficulties in arguing that immersion is the only proper mode, so one should not go further and conclude that babies are inappropriate candidates for baptism simply because no mother would like her baby to be dunked. ("Moms and dads do not have to worry about drowning their newborns in order to honor God's covenant." [24])
Chapell very clearly communicates that infant baptism does not guarantee future salvation. "No sacrament automatically creates or transmits the grace of salvation…. No mere ritual will save anyone." (24) So why baptize children? "Because God makes covenantal promises to believers and to their children. In baptism we honor God by marking out and acting on the promises that reflect his grace both in blessing parents who act in devotion to God and in blessing the child being devoted to him in covenantal faith…. In the sacrament of baptism, we as parents demonstrate our commitment to be faithful stewards of the precious gift of a child's soul that God grants us to nurture for a season of life." (24–25)
Chapell's comments on raising children in the Christian community contained some newer thoughts for me, and they did hit home:
It is possible, even common, for the children of Christian parents never to know a day that they do not believe that Jesus is their Savior and Lord. Such covenantal growth of a child is, in fact, the normal Christian life that God intends for his people…. Of course there are exceptions. True faith remains a supernatural gift, but natural human instruments fulfilling their covenant obligations most frequently communicate it. (27, emphasis original)
There is no reason to presume that because children are not yet able to express mature faith, they must be treated as unbelievers. It is not hypocritical to take them to church, urge them to express joy that Jesus loves them, or allow them to pray at bedtime, or make other such expressions of childish faith. To the contrary, it would be unbiblical to treat our children as offspring of Satan, unloved by God, and enemies of the household of faith, until they express saving faith." (28)
I won't rehash all the classic Baptist reasons for rejecting Chapell's argument; those can be found elsewhere. I'll just make a few observations:
1. Chapell left me a little unclear on what promises exactly God makes to covenant children. What benefits flow to baptized babies that kids in credobaptist churches (like mine) don't get?
2. However, his thoughts on how we treat children who have not yet made a profession of personal faith (and who, of course, have not yet had time to demonstrate mature faith and lasting spiritual growth), were sobering for me. Infant baptism appears to have a strength here, giving account theologically for something we all do but can't justify. How many Christian parents carefully their kids to pray and then insist in a theological debate that God does not hear the prayers of unregenerated people? This is an issue I wish I had more clarity on myself, that I've been thinking about for a good while.
3. The passages that mention families (and couches!) being baptized can all plausibly be used for either side of the debate. They don't tend to decide it for anyone in my experience. What decides the issue for me—the reason I myself am a Baptist—is actually the precious New Covenant passage of Jeremiah 31. The covenant in which the church now partakes is one in which people will not have to exhort one another to "Know the Lord" (Jer. 31:34). Every member of the covenant already does. I don't want to confuse my children by making them think they are automatically in any sense covenant members, and I don't see Jeremiah 31 giving a third class of "potential covenant members." You either know the Lord or you don't. Neither does my position require, I think, that my kids make a memorable "decision for Christ" on a specific day. That may happen, or their experience of spiritual birth may appear (on the outside) to be more gradual. That, I think, was my experience (it's a little hard to read this many years on).
June 10, 2017
While I still don't think I would have baptized my infants this was a great read to understand the rationale of fellow believers. Chapell handles it with deft writing in this book that will take you all of fifteen minutes to read. While my church does baby dedications I know can say I understand the argument for paedobaptism and no longer look down upon it when I did not understand it. Recommended
March 15, 2022
This was a good introduction to the topic of infant baptism. Coming from a Baptist perspective, I was thankful for his clarity and simplistic language. This book is meant for lay people to understand the Presbyterian position, and I think Chapell does a good job of that. It is definitely not exhaustive, but a good starting point!
April 14, 2024
A helpful and thought provoking booklet that helped me think differently about how baptism is discussed in the Bible.
February 2, 2025
Probably my favorite in the series.
Read
June 11, 2025Is it cheating if I count this 32 page book in my yearly book count?
April 15, 2022
Great and concise little book. Our church wants parents who are baptizing their kids to read this. We read it because our kids, or our “household” is getting baptized next week.
July 4, 2017
A brief but solid defense of infant baptism, with much scriptural evidence.
Summary
1. Covenant of faith made with Abraham was also to his children. This covenant applies to all believers today.
2. In covenant, parent has headship and represents children.
3. A covenant sign (circumcision, baptism) is a seal (a visible pledge that covenant promises will apply when conditions of faith are met), so the sign doesn't have to be tied to the moment of conversion).
4. Children would have been included as members of households that were baptized.
5. Immersion isn't only acceptable mode of baptism.
Notes
Sign of covenant (circumcision) was given after covenant was made. It was neither precondition of covenant nor means of manufacturing it.
Abraham as head of household was to devote all members of his household to God and show it by circumcision, even though all members hadn't expressed faith.
Principal of child being covenantally represented by parent's faith shown by 1 Cor 7:14 (children of believers
"holy").
Faith wasn't prerequisite for circumcision in OT, because it was sign and seal (Romans 4:11).
In NT, God continues to relate to his people as individuals and as families (Acts 2:38-39; Gal 3:7, 17, 29).
Covenant continues from OT to NT, but sign changed to reflect God's work in maintaining his promises (Christ's death). In OT, circumcision signified removal of sin (Heb 10:10, 1 Pet 1:18). In NT, baptism signifies same (Acts 22:16, 1 Cor 6:11, Heb 9:14).
Col 2:11-12 shows baptism replaces circumcision.
Rescinding of covenant sign from children of believers would have been a major change, and we would expect Scripture to record it.
Every person identified as having a household present at his or her conversion also had their household baptized. No evidence that children were excluded. Acts 10:47-48; 16:15; 18:8, 1 Cor 1:14, 16.
Bible doesn't mean immersion every time it speaks of baptism. Mark 7:2-4; Heb 9:10-22; Luke 11:38; Ex 24:6-8; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:5; 2:17-18; Titus 3:5-6.
Summary
1. Covenant of faith made with Abraham was also to his children. This covenant applies to all believers today.
2. In covenant, parent has headship and represents children.
3. A covenant sign (circumcision, baptism) is a seal (a visible pledge that covenant promises will apply when conditions of faith are met), so the sign doesn't have to be tied to the moment of conversion).
4. Children would have been included as members of households that were baptized.
5. Immersion isn't only acceptable mode of baptism.
Notes
Sign of covenant (circumcision) was given after covenant was made. It was neither precondition of covenant nor means of manufacturing it.
Abraham as head of household was to devote all members of his household to God and show it by circumcision, even though all members hadn't expressed faith.
Principal of child being covenantally represented by parent's faith shown by 1 Cor 7:14 (children of believers
"holy").
Faith wasn't prerequisite for circumcision in OT, because it was sign and seal (Romans 4:11).
In NT, God continues to relate to his people as individuals and as families (Acts 2:38-39; Gal 3:7, 17, 29).
Covenant continues from OT to NT, but sign changed to reflect God's work in maintaining his promises (Christ's death). In OT, circumcision signified removal of sin (Heb 10:10, 1 Pet 1:18). In NT, baptism signifies same (Acts 22:16, 1 Cor 6:11, Heb 9:14).
Col 2:11-12 shows baptism replaces circumcision.
Rescinding of covenant sign from children of believers would have been a major change, and we would expect Scripture to record it.
Every person identified as having a household present at his or her conversion also had their household baptized. No evidence that children were excluded. Acts 10:47-48; 16:15; 18:8, 1 Cor 1:14, 16.
Bible doesn't mean immersion every time it speaks of baptism. Mark 7:2-4; Heb 9:10-22; Luke 11:38; Ex 24:6-8; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:5; 2:17-18; Titus 3:5-6.
July 15, 2017
It took a while for me to understand why one's view of baptism is so important for cultural/political engagement too, but I do think the connection is substantial. Consistent Baptists necessarily prefer NT methods of cultural engagement due to how they read the OT and its application for today. For example, Anabaptist political engagement, or the lack thereof, makes complete sense, because the OT isn't normative for them. They prefer to think of themselves in permanent exile, or under the dominion of Rome. This thinking infects "Reformed" 2K folks too.
5: we don't baptize children out of sentiment, or tradition, or superstition; "We baptize infants [of believing parents] because we believe that the Bible teaches us to do so"
[Tim Challies is not a paedobaptist for theological reasons, but also for personal reasons.]
5–6: Chapell didn't always believe this
6: outline of the booklet
The Biblical Background of Infant Baptism
The Covenant of Faith
7: "Father Abraham had many sons . . . . I am one of them, and so are you"—this is still true (all Christians are Abraham's spiritual descendants through an everlasting covenant; see Genesis 17 and Galatians 3)
8: children of God are necessarily part of the Abrahamic covenant
The Covenant Sign
8–9: the sign follows the covenant; OT sign was circumcision (blood required), signifying a removal of spiritual uncleanness and a generational connection (reproduction)
9–10: representative principle—Abraham dedicated everyone in his household to the Lord (even those who had not yet expressed personal faith); cf. 1 Cor. 7:14—children of one believing parent are "holy" (this doesn't necessarily mean that they're on their way to Heaven); because of this principle of representation, women were included in the covenant too (they were not excluded by male-only circumcision)
11–12: as a seal, circumcision marks God's people with something to authenticate and validate the promise (like a wax seal on an envelope)—a visible pledge to honor His word
The Covenant Continuation
12–13: Peter says that the covenant of faith ("for you and your children") continues (Acts 2:39)—God calls individuals and families; believers are children of Abraham and heirs of the promise (Gal. 3:7, 17, 29)
The Change in the Covenant Sign
13–15: the sign changes to show what God has done—water washes away our sin; the original condition still applies—while children are to receive the sign, they still must eventually express their own faith; Col. 2:11–12 speaks of this change in sign; there is no reason to exclude children of believers from receiving the sign of the covenant, just as in the OT
The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism
The Absence of a Contrary Command
15–16: it is true that there is no clear command to baptize children of believers, but the NT is silent on what to do with the children of believers; in addition, giving the sign of the covenant to children of believers was so ingrained in Jewish culture, that if this practice ever became unnecessary, we should rightly expect a clear command to cease—but there's no command to stop giving this sign to children of believers (and other practices, such as animal sacrifice, are clearly done away with)
[The silence of the New Testament regarding the baptism of children of believers (before or after a profession) is one of the most persuasive points in this debate. Just as there is no clear NT command to baptize children of believing parents, there is likewise no clear NT command to wait to give the sign of the covenant to a child of believing parents until after the child has reached an age of accountability and made a profession of faith. The NT examples of believing-and-then-being-baptized have nothing to do with children of believers. Of course first-generation Christians believe first, and then are baptized. Paedobaptists believe this too. To figure out what to do with children of believers, we look to the OT and see its continuity with the NT, including the lack of a contrary command (e.g., hey, this thing that you've been doing for two thousand years, go ahead and stop now).]
The Examples of Household Baptism
16–24: [I confess that for me, household baptisms, do little to prove one side or the other—we don't know the faith status of other household members, although it's certainly possible/likely that some were young enough not to have made a profession of faith yet]
18: the grammar of Acts 16:33–34 suggests that only the jailer believed, while all of his household was baptized
20–21: five reasons (among others) that people reject infant baptism (including parents' discomfort with immersing an infant); immersion doesn't necessarily rule out infant baptism (some Christian groups do immerse infants—quickly); the amount of water isn't the issue; the Bible uses lots of modes (pouring, dipping, sprinkling) to talk about baptism (ceremonial cleansing)
22: coming up out of the water (e.g., Matt. 3:16) doesn't necessarily refer to immersion—people go down to a lake or river, and come up out of (from) it
23: being "buried with Christ" (e.g., Rom. 6) doesn't necessarily point to immersion either—it's about the funeral ceremony, not the method of burial
The Biblical Benefits of Infant Baptism
The Devotion of Parents
25: parents who baptize their children are promising to steward the souls entrusted to them, providing an example obedience to the church, and publicly taking on accountability
The Blessing of the Children
[Re: what exactly dedicated (unbaptized) infants miss out on (compared to baptized infants): There may not be (m)any immediate and clear differences, since children of Baptists and Presbyterians are treated very similarly. The parents of unbaptized children have disobeyed, most likely through ignorance rather than open rebellion, and visible consequences may not come about for generations. For more on the consequences of reading the Bible holistically, see the first paragraph of this review.]
[There need not be any confusion among baptized children about whether or not they are part of the covenant community. They are—because of their baptism and God's promises to believing parents. Whether or not baptized children become covenant breakers remains to be seen. A communicant members class is helpful in demonstrating to the session that a child "discerns the Lord's body" (1 Cor. 11:28) and has made the Christian faith real and personal (see p. 28). Baptism based on a profession is no less tenuous, since baptized people often turn away from the faith.]
27: in a covenant household, "faith naturally germinates and matures so that is is possible, even common, for the children of Christian parents never to know a day that they do not believe that Jesus is their Savior and Lord"
28: we do not treat covenant children (who have made no profession) as unbelievers: we take them to church, encourage them to praise Jesus for His love for them, and have them pray to God, expecting Him to hear and answer them
28–29: covenant children "must still affirm personal faith" [communicant membership provides an opportunity to do this]; there may be no definite moment when a child "gets saved"
29: if you ask a child to prove his salvation before being baptized, then you should do that with adult converts too—but we don't (and shouldn't)
Words for Pastors
30–32: many congregants don't understand baptism—it's important for pastors to explain it briefly; Chapell provides his own wording when he administers baptism
5: we don't baptize children out of sentiment, or tradition, or superstition; "We baptize infants [of believing parents] because we believe that the Bible teaches us to do so"
[Tim Challies is not a paedobaptist for theological reasons, but also for personal reasons.]
5–6: Chapell didn't always believe this
6: outline of the booklet
The Biblical Background of Infant Baptism
The Covenant of Faith
7: "Father Abraham had many sons . . . . I am one of them, and so are you"—this is still true (all Christians are Abraham's spiritual descendants through an everlasting covenant; see Genesis 17 and Galatians 3)
8: children of God are necessarily part of the Abrahamic covenant
The Covenant Sign
8–9: the sign follows the covenant; OT sign was circumcision (blood required), signifying a removal of spiritual uncleanness and a generational connection (reproduction)
9–10: representative principle—Abraham dedicated everyone in his household to the Lord (even those who had not yet expressed personal faith); cf. 1 Cor. 7:14—children of one believing parent are "holy" (this doesn't necessarily mean that they're on their way to Heaven); because of this principle of representation, women were included in the covenant too (they were not excluded by male-only circumcision)
11–12: as a seal, circumcision marks God's people with something to authenticate and validate the promise (like a wax seal on an envelope)—a visible pledge to honor His word
The Covenant Continuation
12–13: Peter says that the covenant of faith ("for you and your children") continues (Acts 2:39)—God calls individuals and families; believers are children of Abraham and heirs of the promise (Gal. 3:7, 17, 29)
The Change in the Covenant Sign
13–15: the sign changes to show what God has done—water washes away our sin; the original condition still applies—while children are to receive the sign, they still must eventually express their own faith; Col. 2:11–12 speaks of this change in sign; there is no reason to exclude children of believers from receiving the sign of the covenant, just as in the OT
The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism
The Absence of a Contrary Command
15–16: it is true that there is no clear command to baptize children of believers, but the NT is silent on what to do with the children of believers; in addition, giving the sign of the covenant to children of believers was so ingrained in Jewish culture, that if this practice ever became unnecessary, we should rightly expect a clear command to cease—but there's no command to stop giving this sign to children of believers (and other practices, such as animal sacrifice, are clearly done away with)
[The silence of the New Testament regarding the baptism of children of believers (before or after a profession) is one of the most persuasive points in this debate. Just as there is no clear NT command to baptize children of believing parents, there is likewise no clear NT command to wait to give the sign of the covenant to a child of believing parents until after the child has reached an age of accountability and made a profession of faith. The NT examples of believing-and-then-being-baptized have nothing to do with children of believers. Of course first-generation Christians believe first, and then are baptized. Paedobaptists believe this too. To figure out what to do with children of believers, we look to the OT and see its continuity with the NT, including the lack of a contrary command (e.g., hey, this thing that you've been doing for two thousand years, go ahead and stop now).]
The Examples of Household Baptism
16–24: [I confess that for me, household baptisms, do little to prove one side or the other—we don't know the faith status of other household members, although it's certainly possible/likely that some were young enough not to have made a profession of faith yet]
18: the grammar of Acts 16:33–34 suggests that only the jailer believed, while all of his household was baptized
20–21: five reasons (among others) that people reject infant baptism (including parents' discomfort with immersing an infant); immersion doesn't necessarily rule out infant baptism (some Christian groups do immerse infants—quickly); the amount of water isn't the issue; the Bible uses lots of modes (pouring, dipping, sprinkling) to talk about baptism (ceremonial cleansing)
22: coming up out of the water (e.g., Matt. 3:16) doesn't necessarily refer to immersion—people go down to a lake or river, and come up out of (from) it
23: being "buried with Christ" (e.g., Rom. 6) doesn't necessarily point to immersion either—it's about the funeral ceremony, not the method of burial
The Biblical Benefits of Infant Baptism
The Devotion of Parents
25: parents who baptize their children are promising to steward the souls entrusted to them, providing an example obedience to the church, and publicly taking on accountability
The Blessing of the Children
[Re: what exactly dedicated (unbaptized) infants miss out on (compared to baptized infants): There may not be (m)any immediate and clear differences, since children of Baptists and Presbyterians are treated very similarly. The parents of unbaptized children have disobeyed, most likely through ignorance rather than open rebellion, and visible consequences may not come about for generations. For more on the consequences of reading the Bible holistically, see the first paragraph of this review.]
[There need not be any confusion among baptized children about whether or not they are part of the covenant community. They are—because of their baptism and God's promises to believing parents. Whether or not baptized children become covenant breakers remains to be seen. A communicant members class is helpful in demonstrating to the session that a child "discerns the Lord's body" (1 Cor. 11:28) and has made the Christian faith real and personal (see p. 28). Baptism based on a profession is no less tenuous, since baptized people often turn away from the faith.]
27: in a covenant household, "faith naturally germinates and matures so that is is possible, even common, for the children of Christian parents never to know a day that they do not believe that Jesus is their Savior and Lord"
28: we do not treat covenant children (who have made no profession) as unbelievers: we take them to church, encourage them to praise Jesus for His love for them, and have them pray to God, expecting Him to hear and answer them
28–29: covenant children "must still affirm personal faith" [communicant membership provides an opportunity to do this]; there may be no definite moment when a child "gets saved"
29: if you ask a child to prove his salvation before being baptized, then you should do that with adult converts too—but we don't (and shouldn't)
Words for Pastors
30–32: many congregants don't understand baptism—it's important for pastors to explain it briefly; Chapell provides his own wording when he administers baptism
August 30, 2015
A short, but clear introduction to infant baptism that shows the covenant background to the sacrament and why the New Testament does not deviate from that the Old Testament as regards children and their status. A good little pamphlet to hand out to new Christians or to those new to Reformed theology.
September 26, 2017
Perfect booklet for anyone who is curious about the subject. Quick read (32 pages!), & very easy to understand.
March 14, 2018
30 pages. Wonderfully concise yet thought provoking.
June 18, 2018
A very concise writing about baptism which is very helpful to understand the arguments for it.
July 24, 2019
A concise and well-argued case for and Biblical explanation of infant baptism
May 28, 2025
Super excellent booklet on why infant baptism is practiced in the Presbyterian Church. Bryan Chapell explains simply yet thoroughly the biblical explanation of this God ordained covenant sign and what it signifies for the infant/child, parents, and even the church. Chapell, who grew up in a dedicated, faithful, and well-instructed Baptist family, not only shares his own reflectional thought processes from his changed view journey, but is also sensitive and respectful for those who still conform or lean to Baptist ideology. I think every Christian, whether paedobaptist or credobaptist, should read this booklet for better understanding of this highly divisive Christian topic. For the record, I am a reformed Christian, that has strongly believed in credobaptism most of my Christian life, but I am currently attending a reformed Presbyterian church, which has caused me to consider paedobaptism. This booklet by Bryan Chapell has brought much clarity to my view and understanding of children of believing parents and where they stand in God's eyes and parents responsibility in teaching and instructing them in the admonition of the Lord. We are not to treat them as unbelievers and enemies of the faith until they can make their own profession of faith, but rather as children of God and members of the body of Christ, having been made holy by the representative faith of either or both their parents. Because God's covenantal blessings were for all of Israel, including children in the OT, we can be sure that His covenantal blessings established in the NT are still for all His people today, including children. Baptism itself doesn't save, but is a sign and seal of His covenant blessings for His people in which children are included.
February 6, 2024
Bryan Chapell is a brilliant pastor, theologian, and writer. This book is extremely helpful for those who-maybe coming from Baptist circles-are unfamiliar with the theological and textual reasons why Covenant Theologians (Presbyterians particularly) baptize infants.
Some of Chapell's arguments, while they seem compelling on the surface, have some holes. There seems to be a "flattening" of the New Covenant to be equated to that of the Abrahamic Covenant to support an argument for infant baptism. Chapell's observation of Colossians 2:11-12 fails to recognize that the benefits of the New Covenant--according to Colossians 2:11-12-- are only for those whom Christ has circumcised (cf. Deut. 30:6; Rom. 3:29), and who have exercised saving faith. Finally, Chapell's arguments that household baptisms in Acts provide a strong case for infant baptism is difficult to hold contextually in the book of Acts.
Some things that this book helped me think through (and honestly, I am still wrestling with these topics) are how children "fit" in the new covenant community if they are not regenerate, what the implications are for household heads/representatives of the covenant within a household (i.e. parents nurturing their children in biblical commands), and the mode of baptism (if one mode is proper over another).
Again, I recommend this book for anyone asking these questions. This book is simple, easy to read, and short!
Some of Chapell's arguments, while they seem compelling on the surface, have some holes. There seems to be a "flattening" of the New Covenant to be equated to that of the Abrahamic Covenant to support an argument for infant baptism. Chapell's observation of Colossians 2:11-12 fails to recognize that the benefits of the New Covenant--according to Colossians 2:11-12-- are only for those whom Christ has circumcised (cf. Deut. 30:6; Rom. 3:29), and who have exercised saving faith. Finally, Chapell's arguments that household baptisms in Acts provide a strong case for infant baptism is difficult to hold contextually in the book of Acts.
Some things that this book helped me think through (and honestly, I am still wrestling with these topics) are how children "fit" in the new covenant community if they are not regenerate, what the implications are for household heads/representatives of the covenant within a household (i.e. parents nurturing their children in biblical commands), and the mode of baptism (if one mode is proper over another).
Again, I recommend this book for anyone asking these questions. This book is simple, easy to read, and short!
January 28, 2024
This very short book is a great overview of the Presbyterian paedobaptist position. I am comfortable as a Reformed Baptist, but this little book gave me some things to continue to wrestle through. There are three claims made here that I need to continue to think about.
The first is that Old Covenant saints applied the sign of the covenant to their children, and there is no explicit New Testament teaching that would say that this changes under the New Covenant. If there was such a radical change in the application of the covenant sign, i.e., from the children of believers under the Old Covenant receiving the sign to those who profess faith under the New Covenant exclusively receiving the sign, one would expect an explicit mention of this change.
The second is that “baptizō” does not always mean “immerse.” Chapell points out several places in the NT where the word means sprinkle, rinse, or pour.
The third is household baptisms. There are several instances in Acts where the head of the household professes faith and then the household is baptized without mention of their faith. The question is whether this included infants. Of course, Chapell says it does, pointing to Abraham’s household being circumcised on account of his faith and this household application of the sign of the covenant being carried into the New Covenant.
Still a Baptist though haha.
The first is that Old Covenant saints applied the sign of the covenant to their children, and there is no explicit New Testament teaching that would say that this changes under the New Covenant. If there was such a radical change in the application of the covenant sign, i.e., from the children of believers under the Old Covenant receiving the sign to those who profess faith under the New Covenant exclusively receiving the sign, one would expect an explicit mention of this change.
The second is that “baptizō” does not always mean “immerse.” Chapell points out several places in the NT where the word means sprinkle, rinse, or pour.
The third is household baptisms. There are several instances in Acts where the head of the household professes faith and then the household is baptized without mention of their faith. The question is whether this included infants. Of course, Chapell says it does, pointing to Abraham’s household being circumcised on account of his faith and this household application of the sign of the covenant being carried into the New Covenant.
Still a Baptist though haha.
August 3, 2019
I have a lot of thoughts about this book/topic that I don't have time to type out here. Overall, this pamphlet explains the Presbyterian/Reformed perspective on infant baptism very well and I definitely did not understand the position until reading it. I am not entirely convinced, but I have more of a basis of knowledge for discussing and thinking about the different interpretations of Scripture regarding baptism. Thought-provoking read if you enjoy theology!
July 24, 2020
This was ok. I'm not sure if or when I would recommend this to anyone who was exploring this issue. Maybe to someone who really is unaware of the surrounding issues of baptism or even baptism in general. Chapell discusses the very basic questions that arise in this discussion. Some answers were better than others.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews