This is a 32 page booklet on the Covenantal teaching on infant baptism. It was written by Bryan Chapell, the president of Covenant Theological Seminary (PCA) in St. Louis, MO.

I am not Covenantal, and I do not believe Scripture teaches infant baptism. I suspect the practice is a remnant of Roman Catholicism. That is not to say, though, that those who baptize infants get the gospel wrong (as Roman Catholics do).

Well, I want to point out what I believe are errors in this little booklet. Though I offer points of criticism, please know I think of Bryan Chapell as a teammate, not an enemy. The truth is, I respect him greatly. He is a Christian brother who faithfully preaches Christ.

Chapell explains infant baptism the way I typically hear it explained by Presbyterians. He says baptism is the New Testament sign (and seal) of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is the NT equivalent of the OT rite of circumcision.

Where do the Scriptures say the sign of the covenant has changed from circumcision to baptism? Chapell offers only one passage. Here it is…

Colossians 2:11-12
(11) and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
(12) having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

These verses are cherished by all infant baptizers since it is the only passage in all of Scripture where circumcision and baptism are spoken of together. Chapell says, “These words remind us that salvation comes through faith, and also that the rite of circumcision that once signified the benefits of Abraham’s covenant has been replaced by baptism” (p.14).

But, does this passage speak of physical circumcision that signified the benefits of a covenant? The answers is definitely, “NO!” How can we be so certain? The text speaks only of a “circumcision made without hands.” It was not a physical circumcision, but a spiritual circumcision. We must be careful to notice as well, that the passage does not speak of physical, water baptism either. The baptism here is “with [Christ]” and “through faith in the working of God.” This text speaks of the spiritual baptism which God does for all believers. I am always bewildered when I hear this passage referenced to support the idea that water baptism replaces circumcision and when it is the only passage referenced to support this doctrine. Where is a simple exposition of the text?

Nowhere in all of Scripture is it said that water baptism replaces the OT rite of circumcision. Nowhere.

Chapell says, “We who believe in infant baptism must confess that the lack of any specific example of infant baptism in the New Testament is a strong counterweight to our position” (p.15). I say, “Well said!” A few lines later he says, “The church would not have argued the issues surrounding infant baptism for centuries if the right answers were obvious.” I heartily disagree. I believe many issues have been argued for centuries even though the answers were obvious. This is because practices born out of tradition are hard to lose, and sometimes take even centuries to lose!

So, what is Chapell’s argument? First, he says, there is no “specific command to deny children the covenant sign and seal” (p.16). But, this is not an argument. There is no command to deny animals the covenant sign and seal either. Chapell says, “The absence of a scriptural command to prohibit administering the sign of the covenant to children after two thousand years of observing such a practice weighs significantly against the view that the apostles wanted only those who were able to profess their faith to be baptized” (p.16). What practice was observed for two thousand years? Baptism? No. It was circumcision, and yes, there are prohibitions against observing the rite of circumcision in NT times. The simple fact is that baptism is never said to be a sign of a covenant.

Chapell’s second argument pertains to the examples in Acts where households were baptized. Chapell assumes the households included infants and then concludes that infants were baptized. He says, “Whenever an individual baptism is described in the New Testament, the members of the household, if they were present, also received the covenant sign of baptism” (p.19). First, (as I’ve said before) baptism is never referred to as a “covenant sign” in Scripture. Second, infants are never explicitly said to be a part of the households who were being baptized; it must be assumed. Third, particular passages in Acts indicate that households who were baptized were believers. Acts 11:14 speaks of a household that was saved and baptized (see the context, especially Acts 10:44-48 which speaks of the same believers who spoke in tongues). Presumably, the other accounts of households being baptized followed the same pattern: people were saved and then baptized (no one was baptized without being saved already). Look at this passage:

Acts 18:8
Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

Crispus’ whole household believed. Many others also believed and were baptized. According to Luke (writer of Acts), those baptized were believers (not infants who are intellectually incapable of believing unto salvation).

Honestly, I am amazed that so many godly and well-studied Christians hold onto the doctrine of infant baptism. I am amazed because there is no passage of Scripture that relates water baptism to the physical rite of OT circumcision. I am amazed because there is not even one example in all of Scripture of an infant being baptized. I am amazed.

Further, I am alarmed. Chapell says, “A child of believing parents has been baptized as a member of a believing household, is a child member of the body of Christ, and has been made holy by the representative faith of either or both parents” (p. 28). He also says, “such children also have the blessing of being treated as children of God by their parents…it would be unbiblical to treat our children as offspring of Satan, unloved by God, and enemies of the household of faith, until they express saving faith” (p.28). These statements are alarming to me. I know Chapell doesn’t believe infants who have been baptized are saved. Chapell certainly has the gospel right. But, his statements - it seems to me - would breed confusion about the gospel. Should parents consider their children to be members of the body of Christ if the children have not personally believed in Christ? NO!! Should these unbelieving children be considered enemies of the household of faith? Yes. ALL unbelievers are spiritually dead, and are enemies of Christ and His people (Ephesians 2:1-2; Colossians 1:21).

I could say a lot more in answer to Chapell’s booklet, but I think that’s enough. In summary, (1) reject the doctrine of infant baptism because it is no where to be found in Scripture. (2) Be humble in your rejection because we all make mistakes in our study of Scripture. (3) Don’t cause division if you see the error in the doctrine of infant baptism and are in a place that practices infant baptism. Humbly and lovingly talk to your leaders before you do anything. (4) Continue to love and give thanks to God for your brothers who believe in the Covenantal doctrine of infant baptism since they have not perverted the gospel.