Thoughts on Credo Baptism
The following was part of an online dialogue with a Presbyterian brother about infant baptism.
New Testament members are all regenerate. We must be born again to enter it. Baptism is a disciple’s work. If one is a disciple, even a very young one, it is a grace-communicating work of those who we can both joyously and solemnly assume to have been baptized already- by the triune God himself- into Christ’s death and raised up with him in his Resurrection. Regeneration is never to be believed in one without a profession of faith in Christ or the Gospel. Their calling upon the name of the Lord in and for justification is a credible evidence of regeneration. Hence, the blessed symbol of baptism is not ever to be conferred without a credible profession of faith. That’s why no one in Scripture ever did it in the literally thousands of baptisms recorded. The consistency of this theology in Scripture is on 100% on my side as a believer’s-baptist, brother. Of the five “household” baptisms mentioned, all the baptized in them professed faith as Scripture interprets Scripture and there are no exceptions to this rule. Only credo-Baptists are following the New Testament model. Grace to you. I’m not pretending to outright condemn those who baptizes babies. They may be heretics, but they may also just be confused here. In either case it’s always un-biblical.
Household baptisms (5 of them):
-Lydia’s- Acts 16:15.
-The Philippian jailer’s- Acts 16:33.
-Cornelius’s- Acts 10:47–48.
-Crispus’s- Acts 18:8.
-Stephanas’s- 1 Corinthians 1:16.
Five households, 0.00 non-professors (I.e. infants) are to be inserted. Sound exegetical rules do not allow the insertion. You are (ironically) violating the regulative principle of the NT to insert it. If it is not expressly commanded it is forbidden. Salvation is of the Lord, sir. It’s not like we’re ‘ruling them out of the kingdom’ or something to wait. Baptism, as outlined here, is for those who make a credible profession of faith.
Let’s look briefly at the few household baptisms in series from above:
-Lydia’s. We see how before her baptism: “The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized…” (And by the way we read that they “served” Paul and his companions. I don’t think that was infants.) When the Lord ‘opens a heart’ or we might say ‘calls someone to himself’ (Acts 2:39b) and they- therefore- respond in faith to the message, they are then to be baptized. Simple. We are not to presume that there were members of this household (kids, friends, servants, etc.) baptized without a similarly credible response in faith like Lydia’s, sir. Infants don’t respond in faith to messages.
-At the jailer’s house they answered his question and: “They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” [and] …he was baptized, he and all his household.” Baptism followed the call to belief to be saved. No one was baptized without a similar response like the jailer.
-At Cornelius’s house it says explicitly: “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” Does an infant show signs of the receipt of the Holy Spirit to be baptized? Faith, tongues, repentance? It seems everyone else on that day did. No one there was baptized who didn’t. (Side note: tongues are not the normative sign of regeneration, but we see the diverse outpourings in Acts. I just want you to know where I’m coming from on this, brother.)
-At Crispus’s pad: “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.” “They believed”…”They all heard and were all believing…” then, as always, in believing, we get the baptisms. He doesn’t say he believed for his household, sir, it says he believed with his household. There is absolutely no sound exegetical reason to insert a baby in here anywhere.
-In Corinth with Stephanas: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius…Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas…” Gaius is mentioned alone and he mentions Crispus again here, this time alone, not his household. Not much detail. Of course, again, no babies, no non-professors.
As with every text above, there are no infants ever mentioned. It wouldn’t make sense for them to be mentioned for baptism. Only believers are baptized or the believers in one’s household.
The Great Commission itself only fits the credo-Baptist model. Go…make disciples…baptize. There’s an order to this that shouldn’t be altered, but is in the practice of infant baptism.
Lastly, if a man has his heart opened, has a wife, 3 servants, and 11 children and he, his wife, 2 of the servants, and 10 of his kids were baptized with one being a 1 year-old and therefore not baptized, you could plainly speak of an “entire household” being baptized and exclude those two who could not or did not make a profession of faith.
Put it all together, you lose nothing in credo-baptism. In pedo-baptism, you risk a presumption that is entirely unwarranted even in one’s love for one’s children.
God bless!!!
Two things for further study if you like:
https://youtu.be/deK7FyDs6xo?is=jpvojn9luslw0MLO
https://biblecia.com/media/z8kc3t5/baptism-from-a-baptist-150-min
New Testament members are all regenerate. We must be born again to enter it. Baptism is a disciple’s work. If one is a disciple, even a very young one, it is a grace-communicating work of those who we can both joyously and solemnly assume to have been baptized already- by the triune God himself- into Christ’s death and raised up with him in his Resurrection. Regeneration is never to be believed in one without a profession of faith in Christ or the Gospel. Their calling upon the name of the Lord in and for justification is a credible evidence of regeneration. Hence, the blessed symbol of baptism is not ever to be conferred without a credible profession of faith. That’s why no one in Scripture ever did it in the literally thousands of baptisms recorded. The consistency of this theology in Scripture is on 100% on my side as a believer’s-baptist, brother. Of the five “household” baptisms mentioned, all the baptized in them professed faith as Scripture interprets Scripture and there are no exceptions to this rule. Only credo-Baptists are following the New Testament model. Grace to you. I’m not pretending to outright condemn those who baptizes babies. They may be heretics, but they may also just be confused here. In either case it’s always un-biblical.
Household baptisms (5 of them):
-Lydia’s- Acts 16:15.
-The Philippian jailer’s- Acts 16:33.
-Cornelius’s- Acts 10:47–48.
-Crispus’s- Acts 18:8.
-Stephanas’s- 1 Corinthians 1:16.
Five households, 0.00 non-professors (I.e. infants) are to be inserted. Sound exegetical rules do not allow the insertion. You are (ironically) violating the regulative principle of the NT to insert it. If it is not expressly commanded it is forbidden. Salvation is of the Lord, sir. It’s not like we’re ‘ruling them out of the kingdom’ or something to wait. Baptism, as outlined here, is for those who make a credible profession of faith.
Let’s look briefly at the few household baptisms in series from above:
-Lydia’s. We see how before her baptism: “The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized…” (And by the way we read that they “served” Paul and his companions. I don’t think that was infants.) When the Lord ‘opens a heart’ or we might say ‘calls someone to himself’ (Acts 2:39b) and they- therefore- respond in faith to the message, they are then to be baptized. Simple. We are not to presume that there were members of this household (kids, friends, servants, etc.) baptized without a similarly credible response in faith like Lydia’s, sir. Infants don’t respond in faith to messages.
-At the jailer’s house they answered his question and: “They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” [and] …he was baptized, he and all his household.” Baptism followed the call to belief to be saved. No one was baptized without a similar response like the jailer.
-At Cornelius’s house it says explicitly: “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” Does an infant show signs of the receipt of the Holy Spirit to be baptized? Faith, tongues, repentance? It seems everyone else on that day did. No one there was baptized who didn’t. (Side note: tongues are not the normative sign of regeneration, but we see the diverse outpourings in Acts. I just want you to know where I’m coming from on this, brother.)
-At Crispus’s pad: “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.” “They believed”…”They all heard and were all believing…” then, as always, in believing, we get the baptisms. He doesn’t say he believed for his household, sir, it says he believed with his household. There is absolutely no sound exegetical reason to insert a baby in here anywhere.
-In Corinth with Stephanas: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius…Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas…” Gaius is mentioned alone and he mentions Crispus again here, this time alone, not his household. Not much detail. Of course, again, no babies, no non-professors.
As with every text above, there are no infants ever mentioned. It wouldn’t make sense for them to be mentioned for baptism. Only believers are baptized or the believers in one’s household.
The Great Commission itself only fits the credo-Baptist model. Go…make disciples…baptize. There’s an order to this that shouldn’t be altered, but is in the practice of infant baptism.
Lastly, if a man has his heart opened, has a wife, 3 servants, and 11 children and he, his wife, 2 of the servants, and 10 of his kids were baptized with one being a 1 year-old and therefore not baptized, you could plainly speak of an “entire household” being baptized and exclude those two who could not or did not make a profession of faith.
Put it all together, you lose nothing in credo-baptism. In pedo-baptism, you risk a presumption that is entirely unwarranted even in one’s love for one’s children.
God bless!!!
Two things for further study if you like:
https://youtu.be/deK7FyDs6xo?is=jpvojn9luslw0MLO
https://biblecia.com/media/z8kc3t5/baptism-from-a-baptist-150-min
Recent
Archive
2026
2025
2024
January
Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 4Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 5Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 6Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 7Proving That Jesus is the Christ From the Old Testament. Part 8
February
March
July
August
December
2023
February
April
May
July
2022
January
February
No Comments