Did Paul Teach Baby Baptism as the Entrance Into the New Covenant?

(7th article of Baptizing Babies is not Biblical)

Baby baptizers believe that just as believing and unbelieving Israelites bore the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision) from infancy, then the same should be true of baptism, babies, and the New Covenant that was made by Christ. As stated by one of the most historically famous baby baptizers, John Murray:

We believe that Scripture warrants the dispensing of this ordinance of baptism to infants. Just as infants were circumcised under the Old Testament – and circumcision meant fundamentally the same thing as baptism, namely, the removal of the filth of sin and the imputation of the righteousness which is by faith – so children who stand in a similar covenant relation with God should be baptized under the New Testament.[1]

Such a view is obviously in opposition to those who hold to believers only baptism, who teach that only those who have professed faith in Christ are to be baptized and considered members of the New Covenant. Which view is correct? Is baptism the equivalent entry point to the New Covenant as circumcision was to the Abrahamic Covenant? In this chapter, we will examine Paul's writings to see what he believes to be the entry point into the New Covenant.  

We Agree that the Abrahamic Community was Mixed.

The mixed nature of the Abrahamic Covenant community can be easily proven, as both the Old Testament and New Testament authors speak of it often. For instance, Abraham was to circumcise Isaac and Ishmael.[2] Though both received the covenant sign, only Isaac was truly in the covenant. Isaac also circumcised both his son Esau and Jacob, but only Jacob would be revealed as a true believer.[3]  Throughout the history of Israel, we find that the vast majority of Israelites, though members of the covenant community and bearers of the sign of the covenant, rebelled against God, lived in sin, hated the prophets of God, and even worshipped false gods.[4] In Isaiah, there were so few believing Israelites that God referred to them as just a “remnant” of Israel.[5] Though all of them had been circumcised, there were only a few who were truly believers. The prophet Jeremiah was convinced that there were so few true believers among the Israelites that he felt as if he was the one left. Even though all of the male Israelites had received the sign of the covenant (circumcision), most were unbelieving covenant breakers. The Apostle Paul reaffirms this truth by saying, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.”[6] Given the plentiful number of examples in the Bible, the mixed nature of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants is something that both baby baptizers and believer-only baptizers agree upon.

Here is Where We Disagree.

So, what about the New Covenant Community? Does it remain mixed like the previous covenants? Well, this is where the two positions on baptism differ significantly. The difference is a debate over continuity and discontinuity. In other words, does every aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant continue into the New Covenant? Are the covenants basically all the same, or are there differences?

Baby baptizers point back to Genesis 7 to validate their belief that both believers and unbelievers are to be included in the New Covenant just like they were included in the Abrahamic Covenant. So, let's get to the passage in question:

10This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant. (Genesis 17:10-14)

This passage certainly teaches that every male in the house of Abraham was to be circumcised. It also teaches that if they were not circumcised, they were to be considered a covenant breaker and removed. Again, these points are clear. However, questions arise as to what exactly circumcision has to do with baptism now. Are we to apply baptism in place of circumcision? Do we apply the sign to the same people as Abraham was commanded? Is the difference between the Abrahamic and New Covenant primarily just the mode of inclusion from circumcision to baptism? Are non-baptized babies to be treated as covenant breakers, like the uncircumcised members of Abraham’s household? Are Christians required by the law of God given in Genesis 17 to baptize everyone in their house, no matter if they believe or do not believe in Christ as their Saviour? Wouldn’t it be nice to have an authoritative apostolic teaching on Genesis 17 to see how we should interpret this passage in light of the coming of Christ and the New Covenant? Well, we do.

Paul’s Interpretation and Application.

Paul addresses circumcision quite often and multiple times addresses how we should think of circumcision in the light of Christ’s coming. First, let’s look at his address to the Galatians:

7Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8And 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.” 9So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. (Galatians 3:7-9)

Notice that circumcision no longer plays a role in covenant membership. On this point, both views of baptism would agree, but if not circumcision, is it water baptism? No. Paul does not equate these two actions as serving exactly the same purpose, just with different covenants. Notice that Paul does not say that water baptism is what brought the Galatians into the household of Abraham. Instead, Paul says faith brings one into God's blessings and Abraham's household. Unlike the Old Covenant, the New Covenant consists of only those who have faith. However, baby baptizers intentionally “place” unbelievers into the New Covenant and even announce the New Covenant blessings upon them before faith. Paul is unequivocal in stating that only those with faith should be regarded as children of Abraham. Let’s continue with Paul’s argument to see even more clarity:

26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:26-29)

Galatians was written, in large part because some Jewish Christians believed that circumcision was still required for a person to be included in the New Covenant community.[7] Paul directly opposes such teaching. He even accuses them of changing the message of the Gospel.[8] He takes the opportunity to teach that circumcision is not what places you into covenant with God now that Christ has come. Also note that Paul never says anything like, “circumcision is not the entrance to the covenant because baby baptism has replaced it”. Instead, he says that only those who have faith are “justified,” “sons of God,” “one in Christ,” “Abraham’s offspring,” and “heirs according to the promise.”[9] He leaves no room for a mixed membership of believers and unbelievers.

Notice that in 3:27, Paul does mention baptism. However, it is crucial to the baptism debate to see what is said of those who have been baptized. Paul writes, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Those who have been baptized are said to have received all of the benefits that accompany salvation. How could Paul say this if he knew that the New Covenant community was a mixture of believers and non-believers like the Abrahamic Covenant? He couldn’t. However, this is precisely what baby baptizers do. They intentionally baptize those who have not put on Christ. It is as if they change Paul’s words to “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ might put on Christ.” But this is not what Paul teaches. Baptism is an outward symbol that follows belief, not hopeful belief, or maybe one-day belief, but true belief. Paul could have easily said that baby circumcision had been replaced with baby baptism as the sign of the covenant, thus advocating for a mixed New Covenant community. However, there is no hint of such an argument because the entrance to the New Covenant is by faith. Those who have faith are in the New Covenant and subsequently receive the accompanying sign.

Before we leave Galatians, look at Chapter 5, where Paul rails against any benefit of circumcision. Once again, notice that it is not because baptism has replaced it.

2Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.  6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. (Galatians 5:2-6)

This would have been the perfect place for Paul to make a statement regarding the needlessness of baby circumcision and the need for baby baptism. However, no such argument is made. Why? Faith is the entry point into the New Covenant, thus once again proving that the New Covenant is reserved for true believers.

Baptism Represents an Already Existing Unity with Christ.

Let’s consider another passage where Paul teaches about baptism to see if he thinks the New Covenant consists of pure believers or a mixture of believers and unbelievers.

3Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. (Romans 6:3-6)

Look back at verse 3 and notice Paul’s emphasis on “all who have been baptized.” “All” of those who have been baptized are also considered baptized into the death of Christ and raised to walk in the newness of life. Who is united with Christ in His death and resurrection? Believers or unbelievers? Who can walk in the newness of life? Believers or unbelievers? Obviously, the answer to both questions is only believers. Only God can bring a dead soul to life and cause one to live in accordance with the new life that they now possess. This means that Paul leaves no room for unbelievers to receive the sign of salvation before being regenerated by God. He treats baptism as a physical outward symbol of what has already happened spiritually and inwardly.

In verse 5, he even says those baptized will be resurrected like Christ. All of those who were baptized were to receive the resurrection from the dead as Christ did. Who receives such a resurrection? Believers or unbelievers? Only believers. He also says that they have been released from the bondage of slavery to sin. Who is set free from slavery to sin? Believers or unbelievers? Once again, only believers? And these truths are attached to “all” those who have been baptized.

Paul’s teaching on baptism to the Romans leaves no room for babies, or adults for that matter, to be baptized who are not already believers. All of the benefits of salvation come to the same “all” who have been baptized. Paul could not say this if he or his companions were in the habit of baptizing babies. Paul clearly reserved baptism for those who expressed belief in the Gospel. By practicing believers’ only baptism, he could speak truly of the benefits they now possess since they have been united with Christ. Notice how different Paul’s view is from that of baby baptizers:

But baptism is after all a sacrament of grace. And therefore it means more than the fact of need. It means that by the grace of God infants may enjoy precisely and fully what baptism represents. They may be regenerated by the Spirit and justified in the blood of Christ. They may be united to Christ in all the perfection of His mediatorial offices and in all the efficacy of His finished work.[10]

This statement from the esteemed Presbyterian Theologian John Murray is a perfect example of wrongfully bestowing all of the benefits of Christ upon a (person) prior to salvation. How can a human, be they a minister, theologian, or parent, presume to do what God has not yet done? We should follow the example of Paul and speak of those who have faith as possessing the blessings of salvation.

Believers’ Baptism in Corinth.

From his opening statements in 1 Corinthians, Paul reminds them that he had baptized some of them.

In Corinthians Paul wrote:

14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16(I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)  17For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1 Corinthians 1:14-17)

Paul was reminding them of his previous trip to Corinth, where he proclaimed the Gospel and baptized several believers. Of the examples of baptism given, we can safely assume that all of them were believers prior to baptism. From Luke’s record of the trip, we know that Crispus and his household believed and were then baptized. Like Genesis 17, “household” is mentioned, but unlike Genesis 17, those who receive the sign of baptism are already believers.

8Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. (Acts 18:8)

In 1 Corinthians, Paul also mentions that he baptized the household of Stephanas. However, in light of Luke’s record of only believers being baptized in the household of Crispus, no babies, we could safely assume that the same is implied with the household of Stephanas. However, we don’t even have to assume because Paul tells us so later on in the letter:

15Now I urge you, brothers—you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. (1 Corinthians 16:15)

Those in the home of Stephanas who had been baptized are also described as being converted by the Holy Spirit and serving other Christians. Once again, no babies were included in the baptism of the households of Crispus or Stephanus.

            Paul does speak of baptism another time in Corinthians, but as you can quickly tell, something more than just water baptism is being taught. Let's see what we can learn from this passage concerning baptism.

12For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:12-13)

In this passage, Paul is speaking about the body of Christ, an analogy used by Paul to teach the oneness of believers in Christ Jesus. The body of Christ is made up of only believers, each having an integral part in the operation of the body. Those who are part of the body of Christ are thus so because Christ has baptized them with the Holy Spirit. In the New Covenant, all members receive this Spirit baptism at regeneration. The baptism of the Spirit of all believers marked a significant change, which John the Baptist (the herald of Christ) pointed out. John said, “I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”[11] After Christ's resurrection, the disciples were commanded to wait in Jerusalem for the promised Holy Spirit, which came on the Day of Pentecost, leading to 3000 people believing, repenting, and subsequently being water baptized the same day.

For another example of water baptism following Spirit baptism, we look to those who believed in the household of Cornelius, where God sent Peter to proclaim the Gospel.

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:44-47)

From this passage, we can see that all of those who received the Holy Spirit were also water baptized. Why? Peter reasoned that since God had baptized them in the Holy Spirit, they were now qualified for water baptism. Some baby baptizers attempt to use this passage to validate that babies could have been included in the “household” that was baptized, but Luke is careful to explain that only those who heard the word, believed, repented, received the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues, and extolled God were baptized. Luke’s description of those who were baptized most certainly excludes babies.

To bring this back to our passage in 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, we find that all New Covenant water baptisms occurred after, not before, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was belief in the Gospel and repentance. These were signs that a person had been regenerated and converted by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Paul can say that those who have been water baptized are presently in the body of Christ. He makes no allotment for the water baptized but not Spirit baptized individuals to be in the body of Christ. Neither does Paul make any room for those who have not been Spirit-baptized to be water-baptized in hopes that they will be baptized in the Spirit in the future. Unlike Paul, baby baptizers assume that babies are in the body of Christ before being baptized with the Holy Spirit and being given faith and repentance from God.

The Gentiles were Circumcised and Baptized?

In Colossians, we get to read where Paul addresses both circumcision and baptism. This would be the perfect place for Paul to announce that under the New Covenant, baby circumcision was replaced with baby baptism. However, we find something entirely different. Paul writes:

11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having 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. 13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. (Colossians 2:11-15)

According to this passage, what does Paul say replaced circumcision? How you answer the questions will speak volumes. Baby baptizers will quickly say, "Baptism." However, such an answer could only be arrived at if one had been taught from other sources outside of Scripture. A simple reading of the text reveals that it is not baptism that replaces physical circumcision; instead, it is the circumcision of Christ.

Paul knows that the Gentile Colossians are under pressure from the Jews and Judaizers to be circumcised. However, Paul says that they have already received a better circumcision, one performed not by the hand of man but by Christ himself. Paul does not replace one sign (circumcision) with another sign (baptism). If he saw them as perfectly equal representations of the covenants for which they represent, then he could have easily told them that circumcision doesn't matter because they have been water baptized. However, he doesn't because they are not equivalent.

So what is this this circumcision of Christ? Circumcision of the Old Covenant served as a type or shadow of what would be accomplished supernaturally for all who are in the New Covenant. Where in the Old Covenant, circumcision was a sign and symbol that the person was to be separated to God and separated away from sin; under the New Covenant, the symbol finds its substance in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. The circumcision of Christ is not physical but spiritual. Notice also that this circumcision is greater. It has to do not with the removal of a piece of skin but with the "body of flesh."

Those who have been circumcised have a new heart that desires to love God, love others, and obey God. The stony heart has been removed, and a heart that beats for God has been put in its place. No longer are we dominated/enslaved by our sinful flesh. This heart transformation is the supernatural work that has been accomplished in the life of every believer. Look closely at verses 11 and 12, and it becomes clear that what is being spoken of is not physical but spiritual.

11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having 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. (Colossians 2:11-12)

Although this passage mentions "baptism," nothing about water is mentioned. Instead, the emphasis of the baptism is spiritual, not physical, and not done with hands. The baptism described by Paul has to do with a believer’s union with Christ and is accomplished by God, not man. Look at the end of verse 12, it is clear that what is being spoken of here is spiritual and supernatural. Don't get me wrong, water baptism by immersion is undoubtedly a sign of the New Covenant, which is performed upon the believer, but only after spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism have occurred. Water baptism is an expression of what has already happened spiritually and internally.

13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (Colossians 2:13-14)

Their spiritual circumcision, spiritual baptism, spiritual resurrection, and forgiveness of sins are all done by God's supernatural activity. The same Colossians who have now received the circumcision of Christ and who were united with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection have also been forgiven, and their debt of sin removed. These are all believers. Once again, Paul leaves no room for unbelievers to be included in these realities. He does not prescribe a tit-for-tat replacement of baptism for circumcision. Instead, he focuses on the realities these two signs find in Christ. One pointed toward what Christ would accomplish for all who believe, and the other pointed back to what Christ has accomplished for all who believe.

Summary: Paul addresses the Abrahamic Covenant, circumcision, and baptism multiple times. At no point does he dissuade people from circumcising their babies due to it being replaced with baby baptism. Instead, he advocates for “faith” as what brings a person into covenant with Christ. Paul never presumed anyone to be in the New Covenant and to be a recipient of its benefits who did already possess faith. Though both circumcision and baptism express entrance into their accompanying covenants, there is a significant difference between the covenants and their signs. Circumcision was given regardless of belief, making the covenant community mixed with believers and unbelievers. However, baptism was only given to those who professed faith in Christ. Believers were baptized as an outward sign of the reality of salvation that had already occurred.

[1] Murray, John. The Presbyterian Guardian, Volume 5 (1938) Why We Baptize Infants – by John Murray | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind (apuritansmind.com)

[2] Genesis 17:15-27

[3] Romans 9:9-13

[4] Ex.: Ezekiel 44:6-7, Hosea 8:1, Jeremiah 11:10

[5] Isaiah 10:21

[6] Romans 9:6

[7] Galatians 2:11-12

[8] Galatians 1:6-8

[9] See Gal. 3:23-29 for the blessings referenced here.

[10] Murray, John. The Presbyterian Guardian, Volume 5 (1938) Why We Baptize Infants – by John Murray | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind (apuritansmind.com)

[11] Mark 1:8. See also Matthew 3:11