Paedobaptism: The Impossibility of the Contrary

For paedobaptists, we raise our children in a way that our theology allows us to give them assurance that their sins are forgiven when they repent before God.

Article originally published at, and used with permission by the author:

Guest Post: Mark Jones

Our church is swimming with babies right now. Most of our parents with young children are paedobaptists, but some are still anti-paedobaptists. Nonetheless, we welcome them as members and not only love them but love how they love and raise their children, even if they are inconsistent.

The question of paedobaptism sometimes goes astray when certain interpretative features move to the forefront, such as household baptisms or what Peter meant in Acts 2:39. These are not unimportant topics, but the strongest argument for paedobaptism for me is “the impossibility of the contrary.”

I visited Australia last year and spoke at a delightful Baptist church’s family conference. Not a few of the members, knowing I was Presbyterian, inquired about why I baptize babies. I focused on one line of argument, namely: I wouldn’t know how to raise my children if they weren’t baptized.

Here is what I mean.

Suppose on Sunday I see little Johnny (4 years old) and little Richie (4 years old) playing with a ball outside on the grass after church. And little Johnny pushes little Richie down in anger because Richie is too good with the ball and so Johnny can’t get near him. Johnny’s frustration turns to sin and he breaks the 6^th commandment towards Richie (see WLC 136).

Scenario: Johnny’s parents are paedobaptists; Richie’s parents are Baptists.

Johnny’s parents ask him if he was nasty towards Richie and, with tears in his eyes, he says, “Yes, I pushed him down because I couldn’t get the ball.” They then say to Johnny, “you need to ask for forgiveness from Richie.” Johnny says to Richie, “please forgive me.” Richie says, “it’s okay, I forgive you.”

Then there is prayer. God is invoked – the God who forgives sinners. Johnny prays to God, “please forgive me for pushing Richie.”

Here’s the question: has Johnny been forgiven the pain caused to Richie or has he also been forgiven his guilt before God?

Can we say to Johnny, you are forgiven by Richie and, more importantly, God?

Because, as I see it, if you are going to offer the greater to Johnny (i.e., forgiveness from above), how can he not also receive the visible sign of that forgiveness (i.e., baptism)? As a baptized individual, Johnny is living out the reality of his baptism when he calls upon God for forgiveness in particular circumstances.

Christian parents seem willing to grant forgiveness to their repentant children, but the question must be asked, is this granting of forgiveness consistent with our theology of children.

In the scenario highlighted above, what if the roles were reversed and the “Baptist” child asked for forgiveness from God as well as from his friend? What if the “Baptist” child prayed for forgiveness? Can an anti-paedobaptist parent assure Richie that his sin has been forgiven by God but also withhold the visible sign of that reality? Can you offer the greater and withhold the lesser?

For paedobaptists, we raise our children in a way that our theology allows us to give them assurance that their sins are forgiven when they repent before God. There’s a consistency with their identity (children of God) and their practise (repentance & forgiveness).

When Johnny continues to play outside, he does not have the cloud of guilt hanging over his head because his repentance can’t be proven to be genuine till he’s older.

To witness a child ask for forgiveness but not offer them forgiveness is impossible (and cruel). Paedobaptism rests on the impossibility of the contrary: we would have no idea how to raise our children if we could not offer them God’s forgiveness after sinning. We are not Reformed agnostics.

For a Baptist family to tell their child they are forgiven, but to also say you cannot have the sign of that forgiveness is a major inconsistency. You are offering the reality but not the thing signified by the reality. In a certain sense, you are elevating the sign to something greater than what is signified.

Or, perhaps you are consistent: little Richie sins against Johnny and you can only hope for the pain of Johnny’s sin to be forgiven, but you are in no position to tell Richie that God forgives him for the guilt of his sin….not until he’s older…because, after all, the kingdom of God belongs to older people who can prove their faith is real.

In the end, the debate over whether the children of believers should be baptized gets to the most fundamental part of our lives: can a child live before God knowing that their sins are forgiven or do they live in a realm of uncertainty for an extended period of time, a sort of Reformed purgatory?

The next time a 4-year-old sins, think about whether your response and their response make sense for a pagan, which basically amounts to this:

“Daddy, am I forgiven?”

“Yes, all who ask will receive.”

“Then why don’t I have the sign of that forgiveness?”

“Because we can’t be sure of the genuineness of your faith and repentance yet.”