“What is the appropriate age to baptize believing children?”

Here’s a question that’s been asked more than a few times by Baptist pastors and churches seeking to be faithful to Scripture and responsible in their discipleship. Broadly speaking, you might take one of two positions: either you baptize believing children upon a credible profession of faith, or you delay baptism until they’ve matured as individuals — whether that means they pass subjective milestones (e.g., understanding or increased independence) or objective milestones (e.g., moving out from under their parents’ authority).

The tension has existed for centuries because Scripture doesn’t give us a simple and neat answer key — but it also doesn’t leave us without any direction.

What Is Baptism?

As with many disagreements, the first critical step is to get the question right. In this case, before wading into any issues related to the practice of baptism, we should ask, What is baptism anyway?

For more than three centuries, the first paragraph in chapter 29 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession has articulated the fundamental conviction of believer-baptism:

Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

“Baptism is a sign of the believer’s faith-union with Jesus.”

In short, baptism is a sign of the believer’s union with Jesus by faith. It is a sign for those who are in Christ, and in order to be doubly clear, the second paragraph of chapter 29 tells us who qualifies for such a sign: those who actually profess repentance toward God, faith in Jesus Christ, and obedience to him as Lord.

The three words mentioned here — repentance, faith, obedience — are the ingredients that contribute to that good Baptist phrase “credible profession of faith.” The little adjective credible means more than simply believable. In light of the confession, we might say a credible profession is one that appears genuine because of discernible repentance, positive faith, and practical obedience — markers that we can reliably, but not infallibly, read. This inevitably determines how we practice baptism, and these three elements are so essential in one’s profession that our local church (along with many other Baptist churches) reflects each of them in baptismal vows.

Unadorned Union with Jesus

As an example of baptismal vows, our local church has our pastors ask the baptismal candidate three questions just prior to immersion in the triune name:

Are you now trusting in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and the fulfillment of all God’s promises to you?
Do you renounce Satan in all his works and ways?
Do you intend now, with God’s help, to obey the teachings of Jesus and to follow him as your Lord, Savior, and Treasure?

Previously, the pastor has met with the baptismal candidate and discerned a genuineness of faith. Then, through these questions, he invites the candidate to extend this profession to the watching congregation, showing himself to be among the “only proper subjects of this ordinance.” The baptismal candidate makes his profession by simply answering “I am,” “I do,” and “I do” to these questions.

These direct questions and simple answers are meant to be straightforward and plain, not requiring the candidate to have public-speaking skills or theological acumen, but only what is sufficient to convey a manifestly genuine faith. This is why, following the candidate’s three affirmations, the pastor declares, “Based upon your profession of faith, I baptize you . . .”

In the moment of baptism, it should be clear to everyone that the immersed individual is appropriately receiving the ordinance as one who is in Christ. The sign of the believer’s faith-union with Jesus, conveyed in the moment of immersion, is the “featured presentation” of the baptism, and so we administer the ordinance with unadorned simplicity (without need for video assistance, strobe lights, or confetti cannons).

Getting the Question Right

As straightforward as the ordinance may be, the biggest challenge comes in how pastors might discern a manifestly genuine faith in someone who is emotionally immature or inexperienced in life, such as a child — which gets back to the question at hand.

“Remember, you are attempting to discern genuine faith, not maturity.”

Asking how we discern genuine faith is the best way to approach the question of when to baptize believing children. To start with the question, “What is the appropriate age to baptize believing children?” may get us off on the wrong foot if it already assumes that a church may delay baptism to a believer, a practice for which Scripture gives no example and which the theology of baptism does not allow.

Discipleship concerns aside, I believe that hindering baptism to believers on the basis of age (rather than the inadequacy of a credible profession) is as sub-biblical and systematically compelled as paedobaptism. It seems especially strange in light of Jesus’s words regarding children, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder [kōluō] them” (Mark 10:14), and the Ethiopian eunuch’s question, “What prevents [kōluō] me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36). As we answer the latter question, we cannot disregard what Jesus himself says.

So then, how might a pastor recognize discernible repentance, positive faith, and practical obedience in a child who claims Christ and desires baptism?

Discerning Genuine Faith

In most cases, the process of discerning genuine faith, as best we can, involves pastors conducting a “baptism interview” with the candidate. A similar kind of interview would apply to a believing child, except that pastors should also consult with the child’s believing parents. (I recommend that pastors employ the assistance of the child’s Christian father in the interview if possible.)

Without duplicating a template for these interviews in the present article, pastors should keep in mind at least three key principles.

1. We are attempting to discern genuine faith, not maturity.

The first line of questions for the child should be related to positive faith. These would be questions essential to understanding the gospel: Who is Jesus? What is sin? What does God think about sin? Why did Jesus die? Where is Jesus now? How do we know about any of this?

One might call these basic grammar questions. The pastor is looking for evidences of faith that go beyond inferences of natural revelation. While the pastor doesn’t expect the child to recite the Nicene Creed, he is looking for more than vague references to a “higher power.” We want to see if the child has an understanding — childlike as it will be — that our knowledge of God comes from the Bible, and we’re not free to just make up what we believe. Common sense may be our best tool here. In some of the answers, the child might giggle or say something silly or look over at his dad for help. That doesn’t mean the child is unregenerate; it means he is a child.

Because the child’s life experience is so short, we shouldn’t expect the testimony to be a Damascus Road page-turner. Rather, we’re looking for the child to have a sense of the wrongs he has done — white lies, harsh words with siblings, refusal to share toys, and the like. The pastor should help children connect the dots that these sins (commonly tolerated as they are in the lives of many adults) are actually in the service of Satan himself, and our faith in Jesus means we renounce the devil (as stated in many baptismal vows).

This is where the presence of the child’s father in this interview can be especially helpful. While some might think involving a parent provides a crutch for the child’s profession and spoils the process, it actually becomes a line of deeper accountability. In questions related to repentance and obedience, imagine having the same interview with an adult candidate in the presence of someone who has basically observed the candidate’s entire life. We don’t need the children to act like adults, but to manifest genuine faith as children.

2. Address false assurance with robust discipleship.

Many churches delay baptism for believing children because they want to avoid giving false assurance of salvation to an unregenerate child. While I understand the concern, I think there is a better way to address it, and one that doesn’t require us to sidestep the pattern of baptism in the New Testament. In general, rather than churches making it difficult for anyone to take the first step of obedience to Jesus (through baptism), they should make it difficult for individuals to take steps away from Jesus.

The antidote for false assurance is not sub-biblical hurdles to baptism, but thick community within the local church and a culture of discipleship. The members of the church should know one another. This doesn’t require that every member know every other member well, but that every member is known well by many, having been plugged into discipleship structures that encourage shared stories and openness. Local churches can build a culture where it’s hard to not walk in the light. And cultures like this, together with regular teaching and resourcing from the word of God, will go further in preventing false assurance than forbidding a believing child from the baptismal waters (not to mention the Lord’s Table).

3. Pastors should recognize their worst-case scenario.

Our consideration of this topic would be served if pastors and churches checked our worst-case scenario right away. What is the worst we can imagine — that we accidentally give an unregenerate child false assurance? That we unhinge baptism and church membership? That we allow immature persons to become church members? Or is it that we hinder baptism to a person who is regenerate and genuinely manifests that reality?

I believe only one of the scenarios above is expressly unbiblical. As Peter once put it, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people?” (Acts 10:47). What is hindering pastors from hindering believing children to do what should not be hindered? That is the real question.

Regardless of where your church lands on when to baptize believing children, any tensions related to faithfulness to Scripture and responsible discipleship are worth facing. And more than that, the fact that there are individuals in your church, and especially children, who are turning to Jesus is something for which to give thanks. Such is God’s will.

Audio Transcript

Today’s question I can relate to. I read my Bible in the morning. I come across a promise or a text in the Old Testament. I write it out in a notebook. I take that text or promise into my day. But later in the day, when I return to the text, I’m left wondering if I lifted the verse out of context. Maybe it doesn’t really apply to my life like I first thought it did. Many texts feel more and more remote to me as the day goes on. Has that happened to you?

Well, it has certainly happened to me, and it has happened to Maureen. She writes in to say, “Pastor John, thank you for the Ask Pastor John podcast! How do I know which Old Testament verses are for me, as a Christian today? Sometimes I select a verse that is meaningful to me from my Bible reading in the morning. But then later in the day, as I further reflect on it, it feels like I’ve lifted the verse out of context and misapplied it to myself. How do I know which Old Testament promises are for me?”

Even though I know it’s an oversimplification, I’m tempted to say, “All of it. All of it is for you. All of the Old Testament is for Christians.” Romans 15:4 says, “Whatever [underline that word] was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” All of it.

Then there’s 2 Corinthians 1:20, “All the promises of God find their Yes in [Christ].” And Jesus said in Matthew 5:17–18, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” So, even though it’s an oversimplification, it’s true, in a wonderful way, that all of the Old Testament is for those who are in Christ Jesus.

He came to confirm and fulfill all of it for his people. Second Timothy 3:16–17 says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable [that’s important — it’s all profitable] for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” It’s practical and profitable.

From Israel to the Church

But the reason it’s an oversimplification to say that it’s all for us is that some profound changes in the way we use the Old Testament Scripture took place when Jesus came into the world, was rejected by Israel, established a new covenant by his blood (which was different from the old covenant, the Mosaic covenant), and said, “I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). He did not say, “I will restore Israel.”

Maybe what would be helpful for Maureen, for me, and hopefully for others too is to list the differences between the people of God (the church) today and the people of God (Israel) in the Old Testament, as well as how God relates differently to each. These points can then function as a kind of filter.

At least, this is the way I function as I read the Old Testament. I have a filter, and I put things through this filter to know how I should embrace them, how I should apply them in my life. This is what I hope will happen now as I walk through these points of difference between Israel and the church. Because we are the church, we need a filter to know how to make proper use of Old Testament teachings.

1. Israel was an earthly nation.

Israel was an earthly, political nation-state among other political nation-states, but the church is not. It is a people whose citizenship is in heaven and who are sojourners and exiles here, scattered among all the nation-states. Christians are not first citizens of earthly nation-states, but only secondarily citizens of nation-states. We are more closely related to Christians of other political countries than we are unbelieving fellow citizens in our own earthly country.

2. Israel was a theocracy.

Israel was an earthly government authorized by God as a theocracy to carry out God’s punishments for those who broke his law, including capital punishment for idolatry and various other sins. The church is not a civil government and is not authorized as a church to carry out God’s punishments. Excommunication from the church through church discipline replaces execution through the judicial processes.

3. Israel was one ethnicity.

Israel was basically one ethnicity, the Jewish people, but the church is made up of all ethnicities. The kinds of practices that were designed to separate Israel from the surrounding peoples and ethnicities, like food laws and circumcision, have been done away with as requirements for God’s people.

4. Geography mattered for Israel.

Israel had defined geographic borders and a geographic religious center where the tabernacle or the temple was. The church has no geographic borders or religious center. Where the people of God are gathered in the name of Jesus, there is the center. There is Christ in the midst.

5. People were born Jewish.

People were born into the Jewish people, but people are born again into the church. The new covenant is entered by the miracle of God’s forgiving sins through faith and through God’s writing the law on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33–34). That’s the new covenant.

6. The Great Commission came later.

The Old Testament religion was mainly a “come and see” religion, while the New Testament religion is mainly a “go and tell” religion. There was no Great Commission to go reach the nations in the Old Testament. God’s focus was on blessing Israel among the nations, so that the queen of the South came and had her breath taken away by Solomon’s wealth (1 Kings 10:4–5). God never said to Solomon, “Use your wealth to evangelize the nations,” but that is precisely what he says to us in the New Testament.

7. Israel used a sacrificial system.

The people of Israel maintained their fellowship with God by regular sacrifices, ministered by a select, Levitical priesthood, but that entire system was done away with when Jesus fulfilled it by becoming the final sacrifice and by acting as the final High Priest. In the new-covenant people, we get right with God and maintain our fellowship with God by trusting the substitutionary work of Christ and by depending on his daily intercession for us in heaven.

8. The Holy Spirit had yet to come.

Finally, though the people of God in the Old Testament did experience the working of the Spirit of God, they did not experience or know the Spirit as the indwelling Spirit of the risen Christ. Today, we know the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ. He works in his church, therefore, in a way that he did not work in the Old Testament because the church is his body, the body of the risen Christ.

Every Text Ours in Christ

My hope for Maureen and for all of us is that with this filter, with these eight points, we can take any text in the Old Testament and make it our own by treating it as fulfilled in Christ, with the necessary changes implied by these points.

For example, consider the end of Psalm 51. It’s a surprising end to a psalm that we love — until we get to the last paragraph, which goes like this:

Do good to Zion in your good pleasure;     build up the walls of Jerusalem;then will you delight in right sacrifices,     in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings;     then bulls will be offered on your altar. (Psalm 51:18–19)

So, we come to the end of Psalm 51 saying, “This is exalting. This is mine, and this is mine!” And then we read those words and say, “What? What am I supposed to do?” What do we do with that? How are we to embrace that text as ours?

Zion was the geographic center of God’s people, standing for the presence of God among his people. Today, we would embrace that commitment of God to his people and say, “Do good to your church, O Lord, wherever it is gathered in your holy name. Build up the body of Christ, and make your presence felt everywhere that your people are centered on you.”

Then we would come to the end, and we would conclude by praying, “Oh, how I delight in the one, great, final sacrifice for sin that your Son offered. We glory with you in that final fulfillment of every bull that was ever offered on your altar, and we give ourselves to you as a living sacrifice for your glory.”

The sluggard’s Instagram is unforgettable. If you have followed him in the Scriptures, you readily picture this creature sticking his hand in the bowl of Cheetos, unwilling to lift it back up to his mouth (Proverbs 19:24). We picture the man marooned on his bed, energetically telling about all the lions that prowl the streets (Proverbs 26:13–14).

But if you know the man in real life, his comic profile is not that funny anymore. As smoke in the eyes, he comes to irritate us because we have found repeatedly that we cannot depend upon him (Proverbs 10:26). You might roll your eyes at him at first, but soon you give an exasperated, Really? “How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep?” (Proverbs 6:9). He refuses to plow in autumn (Proverbs 20:4). His hands refuse to labor (Proverbs 21:25). Yet calling up to us from his mother’s basement, he insists that he is wise and life is right where he wants it (Proverbs 26:16). He is a blend of satire and shame, a tragi-comic figure, as Derek Kidner names him (Proverbs, 39).

So to me, the sluggard was always someone else.

I had never considered Scripture’s testimony of the more sophisticated lazy man — one with his shirt tucked in, going about his work, busily adding events to his calendar. I dismissed the cartoon, never taking time to examine myself against one species of sloth given to us in Proverbs: the man who busies himself with starting many things, but doesn’t bring them to completion.

Hunting Sloth

The wise king of Proverbs shows us this active sluggard. He, unlike the traditional sloth, is up early in the morning. He has his eggs and drinks his coffee. Instead of being discovered in the sloth’s usual habitat — buried beneath sheets and pillows — he is up and about, stalking through the forest, pursuing his prey. He is a hunter.

See him tracking his animal — thoughtful, calculated, alert. He sets his traps and camouflages himself for the kill. He knows his target; he knows his weapon; he lies in wait. While his brother sloth is sleeping in the trees, he is armed in the bushes. While the other excuses inaction by complaining of lions in the streets, he is crouched where lions roar. When he sees his quarry, he times his assault perfectly and springs violently. The king sees this man return in the morning with a carcass draped over his shoulder.

So far, he is full of manful action. But notice where the laziness of this hunting sluggard manifests:

The lazy man does not roast what he took in hunting. (Proverbs 12:27 NKJV)

What a strange picture. The man woke up early. He prepared his tools. He lay in wait. He acted deliberately, forcefully. He took the prize, brought home the meat — but never cooked it. Perhaps he decided he had worked hard enough for one day. Perhaps he realized just how tired he felt. His enthusiasm died before the meal was prepared.

He labored promisingly, for a time. He remained focused, for a while. His was hard but unfinished work. In the end, his plate is just as empty as that of the other sluggard, waking at his return.

Incomplete

Men, how many tasks have you started strong and finished weak (or not at all)? How many deer have we killed but never tasted? How much nourishment has laziness robbed from our souls, our families, our churches, our world?

“How much nourishment has laziness robbed from our souls, our families, our churches, our world?”

I think this spirit of so-far-and-no-farther plagues our generation. We recreate at life; we rarely commit. Manhood seems less tethered to follow-through, to roasting the meat we hunt. Consider just a few examples.

Relationships: date, but never marry.

Some men enjoy the chase of dating without taking any real steps toward marriage. They love the excitement, the hunt, the thrill, the flirt, the challenge — but lazily want nothing to do with lifelong commitment. Covenant panics them. They live unwilling to vow,

I take you to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, honor, comfort, and cherish you, and forsaking all others to keep myself only unto you as long as we both shall live.

So they date for fun; they go hunting but never roast. Their catch-and-release policy might be less offensive if it didn’t leave behind a trail of pierced and discarded hearts. They put in effort to get to know daughters of the King, but never know the feast that marital love provides nor the lasting fruit it bears.

Church: attend, but never join.

How many men can leave their local church without anyone noticing? They never joined, never served, never devoted themselves to God’s people. Their schooling or career earned their talents and commitment. Their intramural basketball team or local gym received their dedication and time. While they placed their bodies in the church on Sundays, their hearts remained in the world.

Such are the many who know little of belonging to a local church. They come, but bolt at the soonest opportunity. They will listen to the sermon but search for any excuse to stay home and watch the livestream. They disappear for weeks at a time to their cabin or vacation and never get around to joining because of the weight of expectations. These play at Christianity, hunting theological game but never roasting it.

Work: labor, but for appearances.

How many men really commit themselves to excellence, to comprehensiveness in their work? How many drape the kill of their life’s work over their shoulder and take pleasure in the careful roasting of the meat? To the Christian man who found himself a slave in the early Colossian church, Paul instructs, “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ” (Colossians 3:23–24).

Work heartily — literally, “from your soul” — even in this, the most unpleasant of work situations. How many of us are eye-pleasers in our work — working hard when others watch us, but switching tabs and scrolling Twitter as soon as they walk away? How often have you and I stopped short of cooking the meal God would have for us?

Great Hunter

Where would we be if Jesus were the hunter many of us have been? If he came and lived a couple of decades among us and called it quits? If he fell upon his knees in Gethsemane and went no farther, or felt the first nail through the wrist and summoned his army of angels? What if he came to save as an eye-pleaser, a hired hand who turned tail and ran when Satan, our sins, and God’s righteous wrath bore down on him?

If he stopped short, if he left even one step of the journey for us alone to achieve, we would be lost. If even one ounce of atoning blood needed to come from our veins, we would have no hope. If even one perfect work was yet required to fulfill the law on our behalf, all would remain undone. If Jesus somehow proved only a partway Prophet, a mostly Messiah, a nearly sufficient Savior for us — we all would submerge beneath the burning waves forever.

But oh for a thousand tongues to praise the completeness of our Mediator’s work. Our Shepherd did not bring most of his sheep nearly all the way home. He fulfills: “Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one” (John 18:9). This great high priest “saves to the uttermost” those who draw near to God through him (Hebrews 7:25). “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14). His towering declaration from the height of the cross dealt not with nearlys, almosts, or mostlys, but rather — “It is finished!” (John 19:30).

Finishing with Feast

Brothers, our work is not his work, but let us learn from our Master, who embodied the second half of the proverb perfectly: “The lazy man does not roast what he took in hunting, but diligence is man’s precious possession” (Proverbs 12:27 NKJV). Where are the men of diligence in the church today, men who follow-through, men who sprint through the finish line? Athletic men in the world exercise self-control in all things, but do so for a perishable wreath — should we not much more do so for the imperishable (1 Corinthians 9:25)?

“May we enjoy the feast from the good works for which we labored.”

Let’s be the few men on earth known for finishing the good we start in our families, our work, our churches, our communities, our nation, our world. Let our “yes” be yes and the quality of our commitments never be questioned. “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might” (Ecclesiastes 9:10). You serve the Lord. Let each of us, in our own ways, end our lives saying after our Master, “I have glorified you on the earth. I have finished the work which you have given me to do” (John 17:4 NKJV).

And may we enjoy the roasted feast from the good works for which we labored with all our might.