The Basis for Infant Baptism – Covenant Theology (?)

 

Conservative leaders, scholars, and denominations in Reformed, Presbyterian, and Calvinist churches typically adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith. They claim to follow the scriptures very carefully and closely, yet they sprinkle newborn babies without faith as if such sprinkling were baptism. Though they agree that there is no explicit New Testament command or example to justify this practice, they try to infer it from a system they have developed known as Covenant Theology (CT).

CT holds that all the biblical covenants (with Adam, Noah, Israel, David, etc.) are essentially one, and so they must all have the same parallel components. Of course, one component of the Mosaic covenant was a sign – namely, circumcision – to show that each newborn son belonged to a covenant family and community.

So, according to CT, there must be a corresponding component to circumcision in the new covenant. CT advocates then determined, even without one clear biblical command, statement, or example, that New Testament baptism corresponds to Old Testament circumcision. Since babies were circumcised, babies are to be baptized.

Does Covenant Theology Justify Infant Baptism?

Having viewed a CT presentation on this subject several times, I want to consider the New Testament scriptures that the CT speaker presented.

Acts 2:39

Acts 2:39 “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

CT claims that the words “and your children” imply infant baptism. That cannot be. The “promise” offered, according to Acts 2:36-38, was for sinners who were called to repent and only then to be baptized for (unto) the forgiveness of their sins. Let’s read on.

Acts 2:40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!”

The message to convicted Jews at Pentecost was not, “Bring your babies to be baptized to mark them as members of the covenant to which you belong.” It was rather, “You yourselves must obey this command in order to be saved.”

Acts 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

No babies were baptized that day. If CT were correct, wouldn’t the parents have brought their babies forward to be baptized? That’s not what happened. Only “those who had received his word” were baptized. No babies.

Interestingly enough, these CT advocates will not sprinkle an adult unless that adult first makes a profession of faith (like Abraham). Faith is impossible for babies, but it is required of adults before they are sprinkled (like the infant Isaac).

Ephesians 1:1; 6:1

The CT speaker inferred that, since Eph 1:1 is addressed to the whole church (“to the saints at Ephesus”), and since Eph 6:1 is addressed to children (“Children, obey your parents …”), newborn babies must have been “members” of the church community and therefore baptized.

This cannot be correct, first because the New Testament never calls babies “saints”. According to Eph 1:13, in the same context, people became saints after they had heard the gospel and believed it. Second, the children mentioned in Eph 6:1 were told to obey their parents in the Lord. Newborn babies would be unable to understand or respond to such instructions. Rather, these were children who were able to obey their parents and therefore able also to obey the Lord.

Romans 4:11

Rom 4:11 … and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them …

No doubt, Abraham was credited with righteousness before he was circumcised (Gen 15:6; 17:24). His circumcision was a sign and seal of that prior justification. But the New Testament never refers to baptism as a “sign” or a “seal” or as an event that follows one’s reception of salvation. Review what we noted in Acts 2 above.

Colossians 2:9-15

Only in this text, and nowhere else, does the Lord mention circumcision and baptism together. There is no mention of babies, but rather Gentiles who had been dead in their personal sins (2:13) lost and who were now saved. These Gentiles, who of course were physically uncircumcised (2:13), became “circumcised” through the finished work of Christ and their identification with Him. This “circumcision” took place when they were buried (immersed, not sprinkled) with Christ in baptism (Rom 6:1-4) and raised with Him through their own personal faith.

Circumcision and baptism are similar only in one sense, in that something was removed. In circumcision, skin was removed. In baptism, as an expression of personal faith in the grace of God and the cross of Christ, personal sin was removed. Since this circumcision with Christ, this union with Christ in baptism, involved personal faith (2:12), it is simply impossible to read newborn babies into this text.

Since Old Testament circumcision was only for males, CT advocates must take another step to “authorize” the sprinkling of baby girls. They may pull in Galatians 3:28 (“neither male for female”) and say that the new covenant “expands” the parallel with circumcision. Of course, Galatians 3:28 follows 3:26-27, a text which once again insists that baptism is an expression of personal faith.

As a consequence of placing baptism before faith (contrary to Mark 16:16), CT advocates have chosen to add other practices not taught in scripture. One is the need for a profession of faith (similar to Catholic confirmation) and a first communion after that profession. CT advocates admit that this after-baptism profession is not found in scripture. (It couldn’t be, because New Testament baptism was always the expression of prior faith and repentance – Acts 2:38). So, CT requires faith before communion, but not before baptism. Babies are to be baptized but not to observe the Lord’s Supper.

See a related post here. https://serving-and-sharing.blogspot.com/2025/12/the-westminster-confession-of-faith.html

 

Our Christmas Lights and the Case for Limited Government

Would you believe that we arranged to have our Christmas lights installed (and later taken down) this year for about half of what we paid the last time around? If you compared our 2025 and 2026 total labor costs to put the same set of lights up and take them down, you would see that we saved almost 50%. Both this year’s installer and we are quite happy with the price and the outcome. The story is worth telling, because it illustrates some differences between big government and limited government.

We had the same house both years; we had not moved. We had the same lights; we had bought them years ago and kept them in a box during the off season. We had the same installation arrangement each time; that process did not change.

Yet we saved about 50%. Nice! But how?

Before I answer that, let me tell you something else that may surprise you. I know it surprised me. The man who did the job for half the price this year is the son of the man who did the same job for twice as much last year. Read that again! It sounds strange, but it’s true.

Arguably, the higher-priced father had good reason for charging more. He had a company to run. He had employees to pay, and he needed to compensate them fairly. He had purchased additional insurance for himself and for them, and that required paying premiums. Of course, though he did not install or take down any lights himself, he ran the whole thing, kept the schedule, and certainly deserved to be paid. However, he had extensive management overhead. The higher-priced father can represent bigger government.

So, what about the son?

Here’s how we met him. While we were looking for an alternative, we found a business card stuck in our front door. It had a name, a phone number, and an estimate written on the back that looked good.

It struck me as odd that the company name on the card included the same last night as the man I had employed previously at the higher price. Oh well, it was a common name. Maybe they were not related. After all, their prices were so different. Anyway, I called the number on the card.

When the new guy came to install the lights, I asked him if he knew the other man with the same last name. He said, “Yes, that’s my father! In fact, I’ve installed and removed your lights in years past, when I worked for him.”

Of course, I wanted to know what made the son’s approach and his fee different. He said, “My father does great work, but he has expenses related to employees and insurance. As for me, I do all the work myself. You’re not paying anyone else. Besides that, the job doesn’t take much time. So, I get paid well for what I do, you get the same quality results, you save money, and we’re both happy.”

The lower-priced son can represent limited government. He has no expensive overhead, no extended bureaucracy, and no employees. I pay him directly, he does what I hire him to do, and nothing is lost.

Think about it this way. If you want to help a poor person, and you give him $50, he receives $50. If you give it instead to a governmental agency, that agency will have legitimate “middle-man” costs. As a result, the poor man will receive just a portion of your $50. It’s no longer yours, and it never became 100% his. Part of it was absorbed by the institution that managed it. The poor man may be somewhat happy because of the benefit he received, and he may think that more government involvement will provide him with even more. But he never receives the full amount that you intended for him to have. He gets cheated in that sense, though he may not even realize it.

President Ronald Reagan, in his 1981 Inaugural Address, famously said, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time, we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.”

https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/inaugural-address-1981

Without a doubt, we need government, but no more government than necessary. The bigger the government, the more overhead there will be. Of necessity that will require more infrastructure, more bureaucracy, more expenses, and higher taxes. And, when the government gets bloated, there will not be enough tax money to fund it. 

When there’s not enough tax money to fund the government’s expenses without changing the current system in radical ways, the next step down the road, perhaps inevitable at some point, is socialism. 

Who knew that Christmas lights could be so educational?