Over several years I’ve seen a few men change their mind concerning baptism. I’ve witnessed paedobaptists change their mind and become credobaptists and vice versa.[1] In my experience, those abandoning infant baptism for believers’ baptism have done so mainly because of an understanding of the new covenant and its distinctiveness or “newness” compared with the old. In contrast, the credobaptists I’ve known who’ve become paedobaptists have done so mainly because of their views of the Christian household, or more specifically, their views on children and parenting.[2] It is this latter belief on the Christian household and parenting that I want to address.
The Stereotypes
It is stereotypical among credobaptists that paedobaptists wrongly regard their children as Christians because of their baptism and membership in the covenant community. In response, they emphasize the need for gospel-based parenting that constantly points children to the cross.
It is stereotypical among paedobaptists that credobaptists wrongly regard their children as little pagans who are outside of God’s promises. In response, they emphasize the need to rely on God’s promises and the special status of children born into a Christian family.
While stereotypes are broadbrush generalizations, there is some truth there. In cases I’ve witnessed where credobaptists become paedobaptists, they’ve become convinced that contemporary Baptists hold views on parenting and children that are deficient, depressing, misdirected, and unscriptural. Their views on parenting change and so they believe they must be paedobaptist now. However, caution must be exercised. Views on parenting are not determinative of views on baptism. I think both groups have something to learn from each other rather than assuming parenting according to Scripture is a binary choice between the credobaptist way or the paedobaptist way.
Biblical Parenting? Joyful Expectations and Hard Work
I believe that Christians parents should have a joyful expectation that their children were born into their home by God’s choice and design so that they would be born again and become Christians themselves.[3] This joyful expectation is not some automatic guarantee such that physical birth and the new birth happen simultaneously or by the same means. The new birth happens through the means of the proclaimed gospel and is evidenced by faith. But at the same time, those who are born into a Christian household are physically born into an environment of gospel light, the very means God uses to give life to the dead. Based on faith in God’s promises—and there are many (Proverbs 22:6; 23:13–14; 29:15, 17; 22:15; Deuteronomy 11:18–23; Ephesians 6:4)—children in Christian homes should be discipled with the hopeful expectation that they would continue in the same faith as their parents.
This joyful expectation matters. It motivates us to be faithful in parenting, to seek forgiveness and grace when we fail, and to regard our children as a stewardship from God for his glory. This joyful expectation acknowledges that our parenting matters and that God’s promises matter. It is not an either/or but a both/and. Philippians 2:12–13 says, “… work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” This means that in sanctification, God works in us both to will and to do—AND we work, striving to make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10; cf. 1 Corinthians 9:24-27). Likewise in a Christian household, God is at work AND we work. His promises matter and our effort matters.
I reject the idea that there is nothing different from children born into a Christian home compared to a non-Christian one—whether rabidly atheistic or passively secular or radically Islamic. Children born to Christian parents are blessed and set apart. They are sinners but are also holy because of their parents (1 Corinthians 7:14). This is not presumptive regeneration but understanding the great privilege that children in Christian homes have. Christian homes, in my opinion, are one of the greatest vehicles of evangelism and the great commission today.
When parents realize their children are blessed, and view them as a blessing and stewardship from God for their eternal wellbeing, we lean into God’s promises in our parenting, relying on them for hope and strength to carry us on and raise our kids in the faith through gospel preaching, discipleship, Christian education, and involving them in the life of the church.
At this point, many contemporary Baptists would be uncomfortable with the language that I’ve used here. It sounds too Presbyterian. But shouldn’t we expect unity since we are digging gems out of the same mine? Is not Scripture our common source? Disagreement between credobaptists and paedobaptists should not exist on biblical parenting, our disagreement is over the covenant sign of baptism and, specifically, the nature of the new covenant.
The Real Divide: The New Covenant
While we should enjoy great unity in the larger reformed world over parenting (for example, Joel Beeke’s Parenting by God’s Promises: How to Raise Children in the Covenant of Grace is excellent and I heartily recommend it), we do have substantive differences over the nature of the new covenant. That is, our disagreement is not practical parenting, but theological and exegetical clarity on the new covenant.
I will grant, like paedobaptists emphasize, a continuity between old and new covenant. I will grant, the parallel between circumcision and baptism (cf. Col 2:11–12). I will grant that children in a Christian home are holy (1 Cor 7:14). What I will not grant is that the new covenant is a mixed covenant consisting of both believers and unbelievers like the old covenant was.
Hebrews 8 quotes Jeremiah 31 which promises a new covenant that is “not like the covenant I made with their fathers” (Heb 8:9). In what ways is the new covenant different? Hebrews 8:9b says, “For they did not continue in my covenant…” and then continues in verses 10–11 saying, “I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” That is, the difference between the old and new covenants is that those in the new covenant will continue in it because God will write his law in their hearts (rather than on tablets of stone) and they shall all know God. That is, new covenant members are regenerate. They are born again. This is consistent with the rest of the New Testament. In Galatians 3:7–8 it says, “Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed.’” We see here that the Gentiles are “sons of Abraham,” included in the covenant, by faith. In the old covenant, one was a son of Abraham by birth, being born into the covenant community. In the new covenant, one is born into the covenant community, not through a physical birth, but through the spiritual birth—the new birth, evidenced by faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
If the new covenant community consists of only those who are born again and continue in the covenant, then the practice of infant baptism is thereby undermined. In the old covenant, the covenant sign of circumcision was given to those who entered the covenant by birth—physical birth. In the new covenant, the covenant sign of baptism was given to those who entered the covenant by birth—spiritual birth. If the new covenant is a mixed community or believers and unbelievers (babies who are baptized into the covenant, but who do not continue in that covenant), then how is the new covenant different than the old when in the old, “they did not continue in my covenant” (Heb 8:9). Would that not suggest that in the new they all “continue in my covenant”?
In the book, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism edited by Gregg Strawbridge there are several proposals given for why Hebrews 8 does not teach that all those in the new covenant do not continue in that covenant. When several possibilities are given on what Hebrews 8 could mean, it leads me to conclude their explanations are not driven by what the text says but finding an alternate interpretation which preserves the practice of infant baptism.
But even beyond Hebrews 8 and the effectiveness of the new covenant, consider the following corollaries. In the new covenant Christ is the perfect mediator (Heb 8:6), the perfect, once-for-all sacrifice (Heb 9:12, 26), the perfect high priest (Heb 7:26), the perfect intercessor (Heb 7:25), who secures an eternal redemption (Heb 9:15). How could it be that a new covenant member has Christ has their mediator, sacrifice, high priest, intercession, and security for an eternal redemption, and not continue in the covenant?
I am a firm believer in particular redemption or definite atonement. All those for whom Christ died will be saved. Hebrews teaches us that Christ died to secure the salvation of those in the new covenant: this is why they will continue in that covenant. Christ is a greater mediator than Moses. Christ is a greater sacrifice than bulls or lambs. Christ is a greater priest than Aaron. Christ is the great intercessor whom the Father hears and always grants his request. All those in Christ’s covenant will be saved and will not fall away (Heb 7:22; 9:12, 15). Christ will lose none of his sheep.
Therefore, the new covenant is not a mixed covenant of believers and unbelievers. All those in the new covenant are saved and will continue in that covenant, Christ secures their salvation and their continued faith. Therefore, the sign of the new covenant, baptism, should only be administered to those who enter the new covenant through faith.[4]
Colossians 2:12, “Having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”
Galatians 3:26–27, “In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
Conclusion
My aim in writing is for you to have a biblical view of the covenants and a biblical view of parenting. One does not necessarily determine the other. May God grant you understanding and discernment as you navigate these issues that can be contentious in the body of Christ. Let us remember the unity and charity that we must have in disagreement to honor the Lord and those for whom he died.
—Tim Stephens
[1] By paedobaptism, I mean the baptizing of infants of believing parents. By credobaptism, I mean baptizing individuals who consciously profess faith in Jesus Christ.
[2] Yes, it does involve the idea of covenants, but it seems to me that this was a related but not primary issue. Specifically, they view children as “covenant children” and therefore the covenant sign of baptism ought to be applied to them.
[3] For more on this, see my message at the 2025 Family Conference, Hard Work and Hopeful Expectations.
[4] I do agree that the invisible/visible distinction is important. That is, we know that the invisible church is the company of true believers, in union with Christ and part of the new covenant. The visible church does have both believers and unbelievers (there are some in the church who have and will fall away), yet it is our aim to see the visible church align as much as possible on this side of heaven to match the invisible church in her glory.