I know you won’t agree, and that’s ok, but I believe a study of the covenants, of Covenant Theology specifically, eventually leads there. I believe it likely that many Baptist pastors come to agree with the Scriptural implications leading to Paedo baptism and switch to another denomination (Presbyterian or Anglican most often), like Barrett did, but I think it likely many stay in Baptist denominations because they are too far into Baptist circles to switch! Their entire lives (their education and careers) have developed around credo-baptism, if you will. It is not easy or practical to change denominations and they relegate this issue to a “second” or even “third tier” issue. Some, like you, remain unconvinced of paedo baptism, but hold to progressive covenentalism (do you?), which (to me) is a theological system that does not hold together and to which our forefathers never ascribed, it having been established only in the last 20, maybe 30 years. Craig and I made quite a lengthy theological journey ourselves, so I do understand that young pastors’ theological beliefs are not always fully formed, and this puts them in a difficult situation, should their positions change, but I applaud those who are courageous enough and financially able to take the leap. We who are in the reformed Baptist and Presbyterian camps have much in common, though, and I am thankful that we can be united in our desire to see all of the elect gathered into God’s kingdom to the praise of His glory. Thanks for your writing, Michael. I really appreciate it.
Understanding the covenants does not lead to infant baptism because the Bible never teaches that baptism is a sign of the covenant or that it has replaced circumcision. Never.
I disagree. I think there is a good Biblical argument to be made, but as I don’t think that Michael wanted to start a debate on infant baptism and because it seems you aren’t open to a genuine discussion on the topic, I won’t make it here. Have a great day! God bless!
Good observations. The appeal to knowledge is really an appeal to Gnostism (special knowledge).
I would add a 5th appeal here and that is an appeal to the communal blessings - meaning, that there is a rite of entrance into the community of the church here based on a birthright. It brings cohesion and uniformity to the group in the same way that circumcision created a unique national culture for the Jews. Many people who are striving for some kind of cultural change want that to begin with a distinct culture in the church (as do I!), but they wrongly find that cultural change in the production of more babies, not the production of more converts. Thus, the cultural change is inherently superficial and/or forced.
You make a lot of good points, but I think you miss a key point, which is that the Baptist position is theologically based on how we view the covenant of grace.
Baptists who do not learn this distinction with Presbyterianism are often the ones that fall prey to Presbyterian view of the covenants which leads to infant baptism.
The LBCF intentionally removes the word good from 1.6 to show that we understand logical deduction, but believe we aren't required to believe every good consequence that is not necessarily derived from the scripture.
IMO “covenantal” paedo baptism is the least exegetical and least historical position one could hold on the matter.
Exegetically, baptism is always connected to actual faith/conversion/salvation/regeneration. This really leaves two options. Either baptism actually regenerates, which is the overwhelming position of most Christians throughout history (RC, EO, Lutheran, most Anglicans, etc). Or, baptism is an ordinance that is given only to those who actually are regenerated (Baptist view). But Presbyterians have gutted baptism’s connection to actual salvation and have made it a mere “sign“ of a hoped for salvation.
Historically, the vast majority of Christians for the last 2000 years have practiced paedo baptism, but not of Presbyterian sort. Rather, they believed baptism actually saved the recipient. So Presbyterians should not act as if their practice is in line with “what Christians have always believed.” No! Covenantal paedo baptism is an historic anomaly that ignores what Christians have always believed about baptisms connection to actual salvation.
So in my humble opinion, if Reformed Baptists are flirting with paedo baptism and find themselves convinced, Presbyterianism should be the last place they go. To me, the choice is clear: either be a Baptist or join a tradition that holds to baptismal regeneration.
I’m familiar with this argument, but I find it unpersuasive. The correlation btw baptism and circumcision is not identical, because women weren’t circumcised. You have to at least acknowledge the change at that point and provide sufficient explanation for it.
Old covenant was limited to Israel and the sign to the men only. The new covenant is made to all nations and the sign made to all.
The emphasis is also switched from the focus on “future seed” anticipating the Messiah to “being washed” by the Messiah.
Christ has done the work so the sign changes and the nations are now all invited so the scope changes.
Further interesting note. Masculine is topologically aligned with God and feminine topologically aligned with creation. By giving women the sign of baptism it is showing that the whole creation is now invited to be reconciled.
The point about the feminine being tied to creation and how women being given the sign of baptism shows that creation can now be reconciled is super cool! I’ve never made that connection before
I learned this a few a years back and it was mind blowing. When you see that link, it starts to make all sorts of stuff click. Husband as head of wife, male only elders, Jesus’s special care of women, etc.
Gen. 17: "Everlasting" Covenant of Circumcision established. (Gn. 12, 15, and 17 are same in essence, there is one Abrahmaic covenant). God promises to be a God to Abraham, his children, and and all nations.
Acts 2: Peter repeats same promise of the Abrahmic covenant, "promise is for you, your children, and nations", except now instead of be circumcised, Peter says to "repent and be baptized".
Col. 2:11-12 confirms baptism replaces circumcison. Water/Spirit baptism and physical/spiritual circumsion are both in view. The sign is never separated from the spiritual meaning. Similar to Jesus deity and humanity. When Jesus grew in "wisdom and stature" his divine omniscience didn't turn off.
Deut. 10:16 confirms physical circumcison was always corresponded to spiritual circumcison.
Colossians 2:11 does not confirm that baptism replaces circumcision. It does not even mention physical circumcision. It mentions "a circumcision made without hands." That's obviously not physical circumcision. Since it does not mention circumcision, it cannot be saying anything about circumcision, including that baptism replaces it.
Scripture nowhere says that baptism has any relationship with circumcision.
Hey Michael! Good article. I may have missed this so if I have please let me know, but do you have any plans at some point to write about eschatology and what your specific views on it are?
Thanks Brandon. I consider myself optimistic Amil. I'm friendly with post mill guys and appreciate their arguments, but I'm not persuaded at this point. I'm doing some reading on it now and might write on it in the future.
As a trad Anglican who used to be credo-baptist Bible Church, I'll just say that I'm glad this is a topic brothers can agree to disagree on and still be brothers.
BTW, my parish is baptizing the baby of a former Baptist pastor this Sunday. Don't be too mad at us. ;)
The baby gets wet in the dedication, and it is likely the child will want to be baptized as a believer, when he/she can claim that for themselves. It is much more likely the former Baptist pastor who attends the parish, does not want to fight about the issue. And the parist Priest probably told them they will NOT dedicate the baby to the Lord without it getting wet three times.
You seem to think that many Reformed Baptist pastors leave to become Presbyterians is because of peadobaptism, when the reality is that current Church polity for Reformed Baptists, is one where the pastors/elders are NOT accountable theologically to truly hold to the LCOF in their faith, preaching and teaching, they can move around as they please. For example, I visited a nearby Reformed Baptist church, that supposedly upholds the LCOF as their statement of faith, whereas, they are a KJV only church, and the pastor is essentially a demigod for them, with hand chosen elders/deacons based on their loyalty to him, and his position in their church. So, the LCOF is essentially rendered neuter as to what to believe, preach and teach. Whereas in the PCA, OPC and other conservative Presbyterian WCOF faithful churches, there are SESSIONS, assemblies conventions, which oversee pastors, elders and deacons to remain faithful to the doctrine, preached out of the outline of the WCOF, despite it's problems. Clearly heterodox pastors/elders in the sold reformed Presbyterian churches are relatively easily removed, because those pastors, elders can be reported to oversight.
Most Reformed Baptist churches, have ZERO external oversight, and pastors get dismayed because they do NOT want to deal with nearby churches, that have veered away from faithfully following the solid doctrine in BOTH the WCOF and LCOF, BOTH confessions are essentially identical in coverage faithfully the doctrines of the Reformed Christian faith.
I wonder what the relationship is between celebrity pastors and church polity? A part from a handful (maybe 3) of PCA pastors that have significant broader evangelical recognition, most of the celebrity status pastors are Baptists.
I think the "desire" (or in reality LUST) to be an ear tickler celebrity fits more with a general Christian culture (and specifically Arminian Baptists) than the PCA/OPC, as the Sessions and presbyteries would tend to dissuade most PCA/OPC pastors from prideful actions that are more doctrinally questionable. I say this as a Reformed Baptist Christian, who is a member of a PCA church, because few Baptist churches that call themselves "Reformed Baptist" take seriously the LCOF the way they claim, and the WCOF is in almost full agreement with the LCOF on almost all issues anyway.
The Baptist polity by definition is "Independent" which is understandable, but with so many Reformed Baptist pastors holding themselves to be, teach and preach consistent with the LCOF is problematic these days, as few do. For example, a local Reformed Baptist Church that claims the LCOF, has a position of KJV only.
Your analysis contains several fundamental errors that undermine your thesis about Baptist-to-Presbyterian conversions.
1. You've Misrepresented Church History
Your claim that infant baptism emerged from medieval church-state fusion ignores overwhelming early evidence. By 189 AD, Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp, who knew the Apostle John) casually mentions infants being "reborn in God" through Christ. Hippolytus's "Apostolic Tradition" (c. 215) explicitly describes baptizing infants "who cannot speak for themselves." Origen declares this practice came "from the Apostles" themselves (c. 248).
This isn't medieval innovation. Rather, it's second-century apostolic tradition, predating Constantine by over a century. The African Council of Carthage (253) called infant baptism "the most ancient and firm custom of the Church." Even Tertullian's objection proves the point: you don't argue against a practice unless it's already widespread.
2. Your Biblical Method Is Inconsistent
You demand explicit New Testament commands for infant baptism while accepting the Trinity, which is never explicitly stated either. Both doctrines emerge from "good and necessary consequence," yet you apply this hermeneutical principle selectively.
More problematically, Acts records entire "households" being baptized (Lydia's, the Philippian jailer's, Stephanas's) with no mention of excluding infants. In first-century Palestine, households included children. The burden of proof lies on you to show children were systematically excluded from these baptisms.
3. Your Theology Contains a Fatal Contradiction
You acknowledge that most Baptists believe infants who die are saved by God's mercy, despite lacking conscious faith. This admission destroys your foundational premise that personal faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. If God can save infants apart from their intellectual assent (as you presumably believe), then He can certainly do so through baptism.
4. Your Psychological Reductionism Backfires
The accusation of "confirmation bias" cuts both ways. Baptist parents equally fear that recognizing infant baptism's validity might somehow disadvantage their own children. More importantly, your reduction of theological positions to "hidden, personal, and emotional reasons" could be applied to any doctrine, including your Baptist convictions. Are you defending credobaptism due to American frontier individualism or anxiety about liturgical authority?
5. You've Misunderstood Baptism's Nature
Your core error lies in treating baptism as primarily human declaration rather than God's action. Scripture consistently presents baptism as effecting what it signifies: "baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21), "rise and be baptized and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16).
Understanding baptism as God's gracious action, in which our works cooperate, makes infant baptism not only permissible but beautiful. It demonstrates that salvation depends entirely on divine grace, not exclusively on human decision-making capacity.
The historical consensus spanning Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions for 1,500 years deserves more serious engagement than speculation about parental psychology.
Noel, I appreciate your passion for church history and your engagement with the article. However, your comment misrepresents my approach and sidesteps the core of my argument. Let me clarify and address your points directly.
First, I haven’t dismissed arguments based on their source. My critique, including any mention of style, was to highlight clarity and coherence, not to dodge substance. If I’ve questioned the use of AI, it’s only to encourage transparent dialogue, not to invalidate points. The truth, as you rightly note, stands regardless of its delivery.
Regarding your historical claims: Irenaeus and Origen’s references to infant baptism, while early, don’t conclusively prove apostolic origin. Irenaeus (c. 189 AD) speaks of baptismal regeneration broadly, not explicitly mandating infant baptism as universal practice. Origen’s claim of apostolic tradition is noted, but his writings (c. 248 AD) come over a century after the apostles, and his views aren’t definitive proof of universal practice. The household baptisms in Acts (e.g., Acts 16:15, 16:33) mention no infants explicitly; assuming their presence is an interpretive choice, not a fact. My article doesn’t deny these texts but questions their interpretation as unequivocal support for infant baptism. The historical record shows varied practices in the early church, not a monolithic mandate.
Theologically, my position rests on [insert your article’s core theological stance, e.g., “baptism as a believer’s act of faith, rooted in New Testament patterns”]. If you find contradictions, please specify them—I’m eager to engage. But asserting I’ve ignored evidence or resorted to ad hominem is unfair. My focus is the argument, not the person.
I welcome scrutiny, whether from you, a neural network, or a seminary scholar. Let’s keep the conversation on the evidence and theology, not assumptions about motives or deflections. I invite you to clarify which “inconvenient facts” I’ve dodged so we can dig deeper together.
Thank you for engaging, and I look forward to continuing this discussion with rigor and respect.
Your response contains several critical problems that need addressing.
Your claim that Irenaeus and Origen don't "conclusively prove apostolic origin" because they're "over a century after the apostles" applies an impossible historical standard. This same reasoning would eliminate virtually all early Christian testimony, including the authorship of the four Gospels, the Pauline corpus, and apostolic succession itself. By this logic, we should reject the Trinity since it wasn't formally defined until Nicaea in 325 AD. More problematically for your position, you provide zero counter-evidence. Not one early Christian writer condemns infant baptism or describes a church practicing adult-only baptism. The universal silence against your position across all early Christian communities, spanning different regions, languages, and theological schools, constitutes overwhelming historical testimony.
You've also misread Irenaeus. He doesn't merely speak of "baptismal regeneration broadly" as you claim. He explicitly states Christ came to save "infants and children and youths and old men" who are all "reborn in God" through Christ. The term "reborn" was synonymous with baptism in early Christian vocabulary. Your attempt to minimize this clear testimony suggests either unfamiliarity with patristic sources or, more likely, deliberate misrepresentation.
Regarding the household baptisms, you demand explicit mention of infants while simultaneously accepting doctrines nowhere explicitly stated in Scripture. These baptisms occurred in first-century Palestinian culture where households included children and infants as demographic reality. Your interpretive choice to exclude them contradicts both historical context and the plain meaning of "all his family." This inconsistency in your exegetical method further undermines your already damaged credibility.
You still haven't addressed the fatal theological contradiction in Baptist doctrine: if personal conscious faith is absolutely necessary for salvation, then all infants who die are damned. This is a position even most Baptists reject as monstrous. Your theology requires admitting that God can save without conscious faith, which destroys your entire objection to infant baptism. You cannot have it both ways.
Your weak understanding of Catholic sacramental theology also needs correction. We don't teach that baptism works "ex opere operato" in infants the same way it does in adults. The sacrament confers sanctifying grace and removes original sin, but this grace must be nurtured through Christian formation. The infant later ratifies this grace through personal acts of faith. This isn't "sacramentalism," as you pejoratively refer to it, but the coherent understanding that God's grace precedes and enables human response.
Most fundamentally, your entire framework treats baptism as primarily a human declaration of pre-existing faith rather than God's action conferring grace. This directly contradicts Scripture's clear teaching: "baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21), "rise and be baptized and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16), and "buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised" (Colossians 2:12). These passages describe baptism as God's regenerative act, not human testimony.
For fifteen centuries, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches practiced infant baptism based on their understanding of apostolic tradition. Your position requires believing that the Holy Spirit allowed the universal Church to practice a non-apostolic innovation for 1,500 years while preserving the truth only among persecuted radical minorities who emerged in 17th-century England. This level of ecclesiastical hubris should give any serious Christian pause.
The evidence overwhelmingly supports the traditional position. Your response confirms you cannot adequately defend Baptist innovation against historic Christian orthodoxy.
Proverbs 9:7-8 -- "He who corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you."
Your emoji response to substantive theological argument speaks volumes. When confronted with fifteen centuries of patristic testimony, clear scriptural evidence, and the logical contradictions in your position, you resort to a laughing face. This is the intellectual equivalent of plugging your ears.
This isn't merely disappointing; it's revealing. A "pastor" who cannot engage serious theological critique with anything more sophisticated than digital mockery has forfeited any claim to scholarly credibility. Your readers came seeking thoughtful biblical exposition, not to witness their shepherd retreat into adolescent dismissiveness when challenged.
The irony is palpable: you began this exchange by condescending about AI-generated arguments, yet when presented with rigorous historical and exegetical analysis, regardless of its source, you respond with the theological equivalent of a playground taunt. Which approach truly serves the cause of serious biblical discourse?
Your emoji tells us everything we need to know about both your intellectual capacity and your pastoral character. When the substance fails, the scoffer always reveals himself through mockery! The wise receive correction; the fool despises it.
Your silence on the substantive points — Irenaeus's testimony, the household baptisms, your theological contradictions about infant salvation — remains deafening. Apparently, it's easier to laugh and mock than to grapple with evidence that demolishes your thesis.
Keep laughing, scoffer. Your credibility diminishes with each frivolous response while the historic Catholic position stands unrefuted. Your readers can judge for themselves which approach befits a serious minister of the Gospel.
Dismissing substantive arguments based on their purported source (without any evidence, by the way) rather than their content is precisely the kind of intellectual laziness one expects when someone can't actually refute what's been presented.
Whether these arguments came from Augustine's pen, Calvin's mind, or a neural network is irrelevant. Irenaeus still testified to infant baptism in 189 AD. Origen still declared it apostolic tradition. The household baptisms in Acts still occurred. Your historical claims are still demonstrably false, and your theological contradictions remain unaddressed.
If you're genuinely concerned about AI assistance, perhaps you should worry less about em dashes and more about whether your own arguments can withstand scrutiny from any intelligence (artificial or otherwise). The fact that you've resorted to stylistic nitpicking rather than engaging the historical evidence suggests you recognize the weakness of your position. (Certainly any casual reader would recognize it.)
Your readers deserve better than ad hominem deflections. They came to your Substack for theological insight, not to watch you dodge inconvenient facts about church history. Either address the substance of what's been presented or admit you cannot.
The truth doesn't become less true because it was articulated with technological assistance any more than it becomes more true because it flows from a heavily subsidized seminary degree.
I'm Reformed (Presby style), so we'd have significant doctrinal disagreements, including the efficacy of baptism. But I applaud your efforts here.
The smugness, triumphalism, and insults regularly displayed by this author and his allies is so enervating.
They need to feel the weight of the of their opponents arguments. You accomplished that. I'm not a RC, but I know that Patristic church history is going to challenge my beliefs quite a bit. Knowing that I disagree with Augustine on baptismal regeneration (and Martin Luther too btw) should cause EXTREME humilty.
Anyway, thank you for the taking the time to model logical and civilized debate.
May our Lord's face shine upon you!
I hope to see your comments on other substacks in the future.
Thank you for your kind words. I aim only to be a faithful witness to the Truth. The Lord has seen fit to give me opportunities to do that, and I trust His will to be accomplished through my efforts, as in all things.
I wonder if you’re familiar with the former Presbyterian Dr. Scott Hahn, who wrote “Reasons to Believe”. If you’re not, I strongly recommend that book to you. I think you will enjoy it.
I don’t follow Gavin Ortlund, but I will check him out.
Every clause after the "circumcison made without hands", describes what that means, including "having been buried with him in baptism" in v.12.
The Colossian Judaizers were requiring physical circumcision and other Old Covenant rituals for salvation.
Paul is refuting the Judaizers by saying your baptism is your circumcison. Paul was agreeing with Peter in Acts 2 that baptism is now the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, which was also applied to the children of believers.
Again, the spiritual reality is primarily in view in Col. 2. However, the physical sign always accompanies the spiritual reality it points to. See Deut. 10:16, 30:6, and Jer. 4:4 for OT examples of this distinction.
The important thing to keep in mind is that baptism confirms God's commitment to us, not our commitment to Him. Hence, the validity of the baptism doesn't depend upon the spiritual character of the recipient.
It doesn't matter if the infant (or small child) has actual saving faith yet. Although they could.
We have no way to know if anyone has true saving faith, infant or adult. Only God knows this.
I know you won’t agree, and that’s ok, but I believe a study of the covenants, of Covenant Theology specifically, eventually leads there. I believe it likely that many Baptist pastors come to agree with the Scriptural implications leading to Paedo baptism and switch to another denomination (Presbyterian or Anglican most often), like Barrett did, but I think it likely many stay in Baptist denominations because they are too far into Baptist circles to switch! Their entire lives (their education and careers) have developed around credo-baptism, if you will. It is not easy or practical to change denominations and they relegate this issue to a “second” or even “third tier” issue. Some, like you, remain unconvinced of paedo baptism, but hold to progressive covenentalism (do you?), which (to me) is a theological system that does not hold together and to which our forefathers never ascribed, it having been established only in the last 20, maybe 30 years. Craig and I made quite a lengthy theological journey ourselves, so I do understand that young pastors’ theological beliefs are not always fully formed, and this puts them in a difficult situation, should their positions change, but I applaud those who are courageous enough and financially able to take the leap. We who are in the reformed Baptist and Presbyterian camps have much in common, though, and I am thankful that we can be united in our desire to see all of the elect gathered into God’s kingdom to the praise of His glory. Thanks for your writing, Michael. I really appreciate it.
Thanks Denise, great hearing from you! God bless you and your family
Understanding the covenants does not lead to infant baptism because the Bible never teaches that baptism is a sign of the covenant or that it has replaced circumcision. Never.
I disagree. I think there is a good Biblical argument to be made, but as I don’t think that Michael wanted to start a debate on infant baptism and because it seems you aren’t open to a genuine discussion on the topic, I won’t make it here. Have a great day! God bless!
Good observations. The appeal to knowledge is really an appeal to Gnostism (special knowledge).
I would add a 5th appeal here and that is an appeal to the communal blessings - meaning, that there is a rite of entrance into the community of the church here based on a birthright. It brings cohesion and uniformity to the group in the same way that circumcision created a unique national culture for the Jews. Many people who are striving for some kind of cultural change want that to begin with a distinct culture in the church (as do I!), but they wrongly find that cultural change in the production of more babies, not the production of more converts. Thus, the cultural change is inherently superficial and/or forced.
You make a lot of good points, but I think you miss a key point, which is that the Baptist position is theologically based on how we view the covenant of grace.
Baptists who do not learn this distinction with Presbyterianism are often the ones that fall prey to Presbyterian view of the covenants which leads to infant baptism.
The LBCF intentionally removes the word good from 1.6 to show that we understand logical deduction, but believe we aren't required to believe every good consequence that is not necessarily derived from the scripture.
IMO “covenantal” paedo baptism is the least exegetical and least historical position one could hold on the matter.
Exegetically, baptism is always connected to actual faith/conversion/salvation/regeneration. This really leaves two options. Either baptism actually regenerates, which is the overwhelming position of most Christians throughout history (RC, EO, Lutheran, most Anglicans, etc). Or, baptism is an ordinance that is given only to those who actually are regenerated (Baptist view). But Presbyterians have gutted baptism’s connection to actual salvation and have made it a mere “sign“ of a hoped for salvation.
Historically, the vast majority of Christians for the last 2000 years have practiced paedo baptism, but not of Presbyterian sort. Rather, they believed baptism actually saved the recipient. So Presbyterians should not act as if their practice is in line with “what Christians have always believed.” No! Covenantal paedo baptism is an historic anomaly that ignores what Christians have always believed about baptisms connection to actual salvation.
So in my humble opinion, if Reformed Baptists are flirting with paedo baptism and find themselves convinced, Presbyterianism should be the last place they go. To me, the choice is clear: either be a Baptist or join a tradition that holds to baptismal regeneration.
There is no biblical argument for infant baptism. That’s why you couldn’t make one but just made it claim.
I’m familiar with this argument, but I find it unpersuasive. The correlation btw baptism and circumcision is not identical, because women weren’t circumcised. You have to at least acknowledge the change at that point and provide sufficient explanation for it.
Old covenant was limited to Israel and the sign to the men only. The new covenant is made to all nations and the sign made to all.
The emphasis is also switched from the focus on “future seed” anticipating the Messiah to “being washed” by the Messiah.
Christ has done the work so the sign changes and the nations are now all invited so the scope changes.
Further interesting note. Masculine is topologically aligned with God and feminine topologically aligned with creation. By giving women the sign of baptism it is showing that the whole creation is now invited to be reconciled.
The point about the feminine being tied to creation and how women being given the sign of baptism shows that creation can now be reconciled is super cool! I’ve never made that connection before
I learned this a few a years back and it was mind blowing. When you see that link, it starts to make all sorts of stuff click. Husband as head of wife, male only elders, Jesus’s special care of women, etc.
Gen. 17: "Everlasting" Covenant of Circumcision established. (Gn. 12, 15, and 17 are same in essence, there is one Abrahmaic covenant). God promises to be a God to Abraham, his children, and and all nations.
Acts 2: Peter repeats same promise of the Abrahmic covenant, "promise is for you, your children, and nations", except now instead of be circumcised, Peter says to "repent and be baptized".
Col. 2:11-12 confirms baptism replaces circumcison. Water/Spirit baptism and physical/spiritual circumsion are both in view. The sign is never separated from the spiritual meaning. Similar to Jesus deity and humanity. When Jesus grew in "wisdom and stature" his divine omniscience didn't turn off.
Deut. 10:16 confirms physical circumcison was always corresponded to spiritual circumcison.
I wrote a brief thread about that here
https://x.com/dmichaelclary/status/1952350764283617694?s=46&t=NZfU5-kZn99ajFs_LQoCQA
Colossians 2:11 does not confirm that baptism replaces circumcision. It does not even mention physical circumcision. It mentions "a circumcision made without hands." That's obviously not physical circumcision. Since it does not mention circumcision, it cannot be saying anything about circumcision, including that baptism replaces it.
Scripture nowhere says that baptism has any relationship with circumcision.
Yes, agreed. Paul is linking spirit-baptism with heart-circumcision, not flesh circumcision with water baptism.
Thoughtful, well-done article. Thank you for it.
Hey Michael! Good article. I may have missed this so if I have please let me know, but do you have any plans at some point to write about eschatology and what your specific views on it are?
Thanks Brandon. I consider myself optimistic Amil. I'm friendly with post mill guys and appreciate their arguments, but I'm not persuaded at this point. I'm doing some reading on it now and might write on it in the future.
As a trad Anglican who used to be credo-baptist Bible Church, I'll just say that I'm glad this is a topic brothers can agree to disagree on and still be brothers.
BTW, my parish is baptizing the baby of a former Baptist pastor this Sunday. Don't be too mad at us. ;)
Deal!
The baby gets wet in the dedication, and it is likely the child will want to be baptized as a believer, when he/she can claim that for themselves. It is much more likely the former Baptist pastor who attends the parish, does not want to fight about the issue. And the parist Priest probably told them they will NOT dedicate the baby to the Lord without it getting wet three times.
You seem to think that many Reformed Baptist pastors leave to become Presbyterians is because of peadobaptism, when the reality is that current Church polity for Reformed Baptists, is one where the pastors/elders are NOT accountable theologically to truly hold to the LCOF in their faith, preaching and teaching, they can move around as they please. For example, I visited a nearby Reformed Baptist church, that supposedly upholds the LCOF as their statement of faith, whereas, they are a KJV only church, and the pastor is essentially a demigod for them, with hand chosen elders/deacons based on their loyalty to him, and his position in their church. So, the LCOF is essentially rendered neuter as to what to believe, preach and teach. Whereas in the PCA, OPC and other conservative Presbyterian WCOF faithful churches, there are SESSIONS, assemblies conventions, which oversee pastors, elders and deacons to remain faithful to the doctrine, preached out of the outline of the WCOF, despite it's problems. Clearly heterodox pastors/elders in the sold reformed Presbyterian churches are relatively easily removed, because those pastors, elders can be reported to oversight.
Most Reformed Baptist churches, have ZERO external oversight, and pastors get dismayed because they do NOT want to deal with nearby churches, that have veered away from faithfully following the solid doctrine in BOTH the WCOF and LCOF, BOTH confessions are essentially identical in coverage faithfully the doctrines of the Reformed Christian faith.
I wonder what the relationship is between celebrity pastors and church polity? A part from a handful (maybe 3) of PCA pastors that have significant broader evangelical recognition, most of the celebrity status pastors are Baptists.
I think the "desire" (or in reality LUST) to be an ear tickler celebrity fits more with a general Christian culture (and specifically Arminian Baptists) than the PCA/OPC, as the Sessions and presbyteries would tend to dissuade most PCA/OPC pastors from prideful actions that are more doctrinally questionable. I say this as a Reformed Baptist Christian, who is a member of a PCA church, because few Baptist churches that call themselves "Reformed Baptist" take seriously the LCOF the way they claim, and the WCOF is in almost full agreement with the LCOF on almost all issues anyway.
The Baptist polity by definition is "Independent" which is understandable, but with so many Reformed Baptist pastors holding themselves to be, teach and preach consistent with the LCOF is problematic these days, as few do. For example, a local Reformed Baptist Church that claims the LCOF, has a position of KJV only.
https://bit.ly/EarTickler
Mr. Clary,
Your analysis contains several fundamental errors that undermine your thesis about Baptist-to-Presbyterian conversions.
1. You've Misrepresented Church History
Your claim that infant baptism emerged from medieval church-state fusion ignores overwhelming early evidence. By 189 AD, Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp, who knew the Apostle John) casually mentions infants being "reborn in God" through Christ. Hippolytus's "Apostolic Tradition" (c. 215) explicitly describes baptizing infants "who cannot speak for themselves." Origen declares this practice came "from the Apostles" themselves (c. 248).
This isn't medieval innovation. Rather, it's second-century apostolic tradition, predating Constantine by over a century. The African Council of Carthage (253) called infant baptism "the most ancient and firm custom of the Church." Even Tertullian's objection proves the point: you don't argue against a practice unless it's already widespread.
2. Your Biblical Method Is Inconsistent
You demand explicit New Testament commands for infant baptism while accepting the Trinity, which is never explicitly stated either. Both doctrines emerge from "good and necessary consequence," yet you apply this hermeneutical principle selectively.
More problematically, Acts records entire "households" being baptized (Lydia's, the Philippian jailer's, Stephanas's) with no mention of excluding infants. In first-century Palestine, households included children. The burden of proof lies on you to show children were systematically excluded from these baptisms.
3. Your Theology Contains a Fatal Contradiction
You acknowledge that most Baptists believe infants who die are saved by God's mercy, despite lacking conscious faith. This admission destroys your foundational premise that personal faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. If God can save infants apart from their intellectual assent (as you presumably believe), then He can certainly do so through baptism.
4. Your Psychological Reductionism Backfires
The accusation of "confirmation bias" cuts both ways. Baptist parents equally fear that recognizing infant baptism's validity might somehow disadvantage their own children. More importantly, your reduction of theological positions to "hidden, personal, and emotional reasons" could be applied to any doctrine, including your Baptist convictions. Are you defending credobaptism due to American frontier individualism or anxiety about liturgical authority?
5. You've Misunderstood Baptism's Nature
Your core error lies in treating baptism as primarily human declaration rather than God's action. Scripture consistently presents baptism as effecting what it signifies: "baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21), "rise and be baptized and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16).
Understanding baptism as God's gracious action, in which our works cooperate, makes infant baptism not only permissible but beautiful. It demonstrates that salvation depends entirely on divine grace, not exclusively on human decision-making capacity.
The historical consensus spanning Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions for 1,500 years deserves more serious engagement than speculation about parental psychology.
Noel, I appreciate your passion for church history and your engagement with the article. However, your comment misrepresents my approach and sidesteps the core of my argument. Let me clarify and address your points directly.
First, I haven’t dismissed arguments based on their source. My critique, including any mention of style, was to highlight clarity and coherence, not to dodge substance. If I’ve questioned the use of AI, it’s only to encourage transparent dialogue, not to invalidate points. The truth, as you rightly note, stands regardless of its delivery.
Regarding your historical claims: Irenaeus and Origen’s references to infant baptism, while early, don’t conclusively prove apostolic origin. Irenaeus (c. 189 AD) speaks of baptismal regeneration broadly, not explicitly mandating infant baptism as universal practice. Origen’s claim of apostolic tradition is noted, but his writings (c. 248 AD) come over a century after the apostles, and his views aren’t definitive proof of universal practice. The household baptisms in Acts (e.g., Acts 16:15, 16:33) mention no infants explicitly; assuming their presence is an interpretive choice, not a fact. My article doesn’t deny these texts but questions their interpretation as unequivocal support for infant baptism. The historical record shows varied practices in the early church, not a monolithic mandate.
Theologically, my position rests on [insert your article’s core theological stance, e.g., “baptism as a believer’s act of faith, rooted in New Testament patterns”]. If you find contradictions, please specify them—I’m eager to engage. But asserting I’ve ignored evidence or resorted to ad hominem is unfair. My focus is the argument, not the person.
I welcome scrutiny, whether from you, a neural network, or a seminary scholar. Let’s keep the conversation on the evidence and theology, not assumptions about motives or deflections. I invite you to clarify which “inconvenient facts” I’ve dodged so we can dig deeper together.
Thank you for engaging, and I look forward to continuing this discussion with rigor and respect.
— [Your Name]
Haha I can use AI too!
Mr. Clary,
Your response contains several critical problems that need addressing.
Your claim that Irenaeus and Origen don't "conclusively prove apostolic origin" because they're "over a century after the apostles" applies an impossible historical standard. This same reasoning would eliminate virtually all early Christian testimony, including the authorship of the four Gospels, the Pauline corpus, and apostolic succession itself. By this logic, we should reject the Trinity since it wasn't formally defined until Nicaea in 325 AD. More problematically for your position, you provide zero counter-evidence. Not one early Christian writer condemns infant baptism or describes a church practicing adult-only baptism. The universal silence against your position across all early Christian communities, spanning different regions, languages, and theological schools, constitutes overwhelming historical testimony.
You've also misread Irenaeus. He doesn't merely speak of "baptismal regeneration broadly" as you claim. He explicitly states Christ came to save "infants and children and youths and old men" who are all "reborn in God" through Christ. The term "reborn" was synonymous with baptism in early Christian vocabulary. Your attempt to minimize this clear testimony suggests either unfamiliarity with patristic sources or, more likely, deliberate misrepresentation.
Regarding the household baptisms, you demand explicit mention of infants while simultaneously accepting doctrines nowhere explicitly stated in Scripture. These baptisms occurred in first-century Palestinian culture where households included children and infants as demographic reality. Your interpretive choice to exclude them contradicts both historical context and the plain meaning of "all his family." This inconsistency in your exegetical method further undermines your already damaged credibility.
You still haven't addressed the fatal theological contradiction in Baptist doctrine: if personal conscious faith is absolutely necessary for salvation, then all infants who die are damned. This is a position even most Baptists reject as monstrous. Your theology requires admitting that God can save without conscious faith, which destroys your entire objection to infant baptism. You cannot have it both ways.
Your weak understanding of Catholic sacramental theology also needs correction. We don't teach that baptism works "ex opere operato" in infants the same way it does in adults. The sacrament confers sanctifying grace and removes original sin, but this grace must be nurtured through Christian formation. The infant later ratifies this grace through personal acts of faith. This isn't "sacramentalism," as you pejoratively refer to it, but the coherent understanding that God's grace precedes and enables human response.
Most fundamentally, your entire framework treats baptism as primarily a human declaration of pre-existing faith rather than God's action conferring grace. This directly contradicts Scripture's clear teaching: "baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21), "rise and be baptized and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16), and "buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised" (Colossians 2:12). These passages describe baptism as God's regenerative act, not human testimony.
For fifteen centuries, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches practiced infant baptism based on their understanding of apostolic tradition. Your position requires believing that the Holy Spirit allowed the universal Church to practice a non-apostolic innovation for 1,500 years while preserving the truth only among persecuted radical minorities who emerged in 17th-century England. This level of ecclesiastical hubris should give any serious Christian pause.
The evidence overwhelmingly supports the traditional position. Your response confirms you cannot adequately defend Baptist innovation against historic Christian orthodoxy.
In Christo,
Noel
😂
Proverbs 9:7-8 -- "He who corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you."
Your emoji response to substantive theological argument speaks volumes. When confronted with fifteen centuries of patristic testimony, clear scriptural evidence, and the logical contradictions in your position, you resort to a laughing face. This is the intellectual equivalent of plugging your ears.
This isn't merely disappointing; it's revealing. A "pastor" who cannot engage serious theological critique with anything more sophisticated than digital mockery has forfeited any claim to scholarly credibility. Your readers came seeking thoughtful biblical exposition, not to witness their shepherd retreat into adolescent dismissiveness when challenged.
The irony is palpable: you began this exchange by condescending about AI-generated arguments, yet when presented with rigorous historical and exegetical analysis, regardless of its source, you respond with the theological equivalent of a playground taunt. Which approach truly serves the cause of serious biblical discourse?
Your emoji tells us everything we need to know about both your intellectual capacity and your pastoral character. When the substance fails, the scoffer always reveals himself through mockery! The wise receive correction; the fool despises it.
Your silence on the substantive points — Irenaeus's testimony, the household baptisms, your theological contradictions about infant salvation — remains deafening. Apparently, it's easier to laugh and mock than to grapple with evidence that demolishes your thesis.
Keep laughing, scoffer. Your credibility diminishes with each frivolous response while the historic Catholic position stands unrefuted. Your readers can judge for themselves which approach befits a serious minister of the Gospel.
I see you’re back with more AI generated arguments. Maybe tell your AI program to include more em dashes so other people can spot it more easily
Mr. Clary,
Dismissing substantive arguments based on their purported source (without any evidence, by the way) rather than their content is precisely the kind of intellectual laziness one expects when someone can't actually refute what's been presented.
Whether these arguments came from Augustine's pen, Calvin's mind, or a neural network is irrelevant. Irenaeus still testified to infant baptism in 189 AD. Origen still declared it apostolic tradition. The household baptisms in Acts still occurred. Your historical claims are still demonstrably false, and your theological contradictions remain unaddressed.
If you're genuinely concerned about AI assistance, perhaps you should worry less about em dashes and more about whether your own arguments can withstand scrutiny from any intelligence (artificial or otherwise). The fact that you've resorted to stylistic nitpicking rather than engaging the historical evidence suggests you recognize the weakness of your position. (Certainly any casual reader would recognize it.)
Your readers deserve better than ad hominem deflections. They came to your Substack for theological insight, not to watch you dodge inconvenient facts about church history. Either address the substance of what's been presented or admit you cannot.
The truth doesn't become less true because it was articulated with technological assistance any more than it becomes more true because it flows from a heavily subsidized seminary degree.
Cheers,
Noel
Noel, you are a legend.
I'm Reformed (Presby style), so we'd have significant doctrinal disagreements, including the efficacy of baptism. But I applaud your efforts here.
The smugness, triumphalism, and insults regularly displayed by this author and his allies is so enervating.
They need to feel the weight of the of their opponents arguments. You accomplished that. I'm not a RC, but I know that Patristic church history is going to challenge my beliefs quite a bit. Knowing that I disagree with Augustine on baptismal regeneration (and Martin Luther too btw) should cause EXTREME humilty.
Anyway, thank you for the taking the time to model logical and civilized debate.
May our Lord's face shine upon you!
I hope to see your comments on other substacks in the future.
btw, do you follow Gavin Ortlund?
If you hadn’t noticed yet, Noel’s comments are largely (if not entirely) AI generated
George,
Thank you for your kind words. I aim only to be a faithful witness to the Truth. The Lord has seen fit to give me opportunities to do that, and I trust His will to be accomplished through my efforts, as in all things.
I wonder if you’re familiar with the former Presbyterian Dr. Scott Hahn, who wrote “Reasons to Believe”. If you’re not, I strongly recommend that book to you. I think you will enjoy it.
I don’t follow Gavin Ortlund, but I will check him out.
Every clause after the "circumcison made without hands", describes what that means, including "having been buried with him in baptism" in v.12.
The Colossian Judaizers were requiring physical circumcision and other Old Covenant rituals for salvation.
Paul is refuting the Judaizers by saying your baptism is your circumcison. Paul was agreeing with Peter in Acts 2 that baptism is now the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, which was also applied to the children of believers.
Again, the spiritual reality is primarily in view in Col. 2. However, the physical sign always accompanies the spiritual reality it points to. See Deut. 10:16, 30:6, and Jer. 4:4 for OT examples of this distinction.
The important thing to keep in mind is that baptism confirms God's commitment to us, not our commitment to Him. Hence, the validity of the baptism doesn't depend upon the spiritual character of the recipient.
It doesn't matter if the infant (or small child) has actual saving faith yet. Although they could.
We have no way to know if anyone has true saving faith, infant or adult. Only God knows this.
You seem to be theonomic curious, yet you're a Baptist?
Bro, the Baptists will be the first ones to go to the guillotine after the revolution.
Na, well be leading the revolution
Oh, and yes, baptism did replace circumcision. Baptize your babies. Ideally by day 8.