Credobaptism vs. Paedobaptism: A Reformed Perspective on the Covenant Sign

Few theological debates within Reformed circles are as deeply rooted and passionately discussed as the question of credobaptism vs. paedobaptism—that is, believer’s baptism vs. infant baptism. Both sides affirm the necessity of baptism, the authority of Scripture, and the covenantal framework of redemption. Yet, they differ on who should receive this sign of the covenant and what it signifies.

Rather than caricature one another, let’s steel man both perspectives, giving them their strongest biblical, theological, and historical defenses before evaluating where they ultimately differ.

The Case for Credobaptism

(Believer’s Baptism: Baptism upon Profession of Faith)

1. The Biblical Foundation: Baptism as a Response to Faith

Credobaptists argue that baptism in the New Testament is always administered after an individual repents and believes in Christ. They highlight verses such as:

• Matthew 28:19-20 – “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Discipleship precedes baptism.)

• Acts 2:38 – “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Repentance precedes baptism.)

• Acts 8:36-38 – Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch only after he professes faith.

Credobaptists argue that baptism is consistently tied to personal belief and repentance, making it an outward sign of an inward reality. Since infants cannot exercise faith, they should not receive baptism.

2. The New Covenant Distinction: A Regenerate Church Membership

A key credobaptist argument is that the New Covenant differs from the Old because it is made only with the regenerate.

• Jeremiah 31:31-34 – The New Covenant is unique because all who are part of it “shall know the Lord” and have the law written on their hearts.

• Hebrews 8:6-13 – The Old Covenant had mixed membership (believers and unbelievers), but the New Covenant consists only of the elect.

Therefore, credobaptists argue that only those who show evidence of regeneration should receive the covenant sign of baptism, unlike circumcision, which was given to all male Israelites regardless of faith.

3. Historical Considerations: Early Church and the Reformation

• Early Church – Some credobaptists argue that infant baptism was a later development, not widely practiced in the first and second centuries. They point to Tertullian (c. 200 AD), who questioned infant baptism and urged delaying it.

• Reformation Era – While the magisterial Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) retained infant baptism, the Anabaptists rejected it, emphasizing a regenerate church and believer’s baptism by immersion.

Credobaptists see themselves as continuing the radical reform of the church, removing traditions not explicitly taught in Scripture.

The Case for Paedobaptism

(Infant Baptism: The Covenant Sign for Believers and Their Children)

1. The Covenant Continuity: The Abrahamic and New Covenants

Paedobaptists argue that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of the covenant and that God’s promises to believers and their children remain unchanged.

• Genesis 17:7 – “I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant.”

• Acts 2:39 – “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Since God included infants in the covenant under Abraham, paedobaptists argue that there must be clear evidence that this principle was revoked in the New Covenant. Since no such revocation exists, infants of believers should continue to receive the sign of the covenant—now baptism.

2. Household Baptisms in the New Testament

Paedobaptists point out that several household baptisms in the New Testament suggest that entire families—including children—were baptized together:

• Acts 16:15 – Lydia’s household was baptized.

• Acts 16:33 – The Philippian jailer’s household was baptized.

• 1 Corinthians 1:16 – Paul baptized the household of Stephanas.

While the text does not explicitly state that infants were present, paedobaptists argue that, given the Jewish background of household circumcision, these baptisms likely included infants.

3. The Nature of the Church: A Covenant Community

Unlike credobaptists, who emphasize a regenerate church membership, paedobaptists emphasize the visible and invisible church distinction:

• The visible church includes all who profess faith and their children (Deuteronomy 29:10-15).

• The invisible church consists only of the elect.

Since infants were part of the visible Old Testament church through circumcision, they should also be part of the visible New Testament church through baptism. Baptism does not guarantee salvation, but it marks children as set apart within the covenant community.

4. Historical Considerations: Church Tradition and the Reformers

• Early Church – Unlike credobaptism, paedobaptism has a long historical tradition. The earliest church fathers (such as Origen and Cyprian) affirm the practice. Augustine (4th century) strongly defended infant baptism as the universal practice of the church.

• Reformation Era – The Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglicans all upheld infant baptism, seeing it as a biblical continuation of the covenantal sign. Calvin, in particular, wrote extensively on the subject, arguing that baptism seals the covenant promise to children just as circumcision did.

Key Differences and Common Ground

Credobaptism	Paedobaptism
Baptism follows personal faith	Baptism is based on God’s covenant promise
New Covenant membership is only for the regenerate	New Covenant membership includes believers and their children
Church consists only of professing believers	Church includes believers and their children (visible and invisible distinction)
No clear example of infant baptism in Scripture	No explicit revocation of infants receiving the covenant sign

Where We Agree

Both views affirm:✅ Baptism as a command of Christ✅ The importance of covenant theology✅ Salvation by grace alone through faith alone

While paedobaptists apply the covenant sign to infants based on God’s promises, credobaptists restrict it to those who have personally professed faith.

Final Thought: A Reformed Understanding of Baptism

Whether one holds to credobaptism or paedobaptism, it must be done by God’s grace, under His Word, and with Christ as the center. Baptism is not just about personal decision or tradition—it is about God’s faithfulness.

For credobaptists, this means seeing baptism as a public testimony of faith.For paedobaptists, this means seeing baptism as a sign of God’s covenant, given even before one can respond.

Both views seek to uphold the gospel, emphasizing that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone—not through the waters of baptism itself, but through the cross of Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria!