Does Jesus Command Infant Baptism?

Does Jesus Command Infant Baptism?

Examining SermonAudio’s Featured Sermon and the Growing Discussion Surrounding Infant Baptism

Theology Central | November 12, 2026

Over the last several days, as I have been spending time exploring SermonAudio, something has become increasingly noticeable. There has been a significant amount of content teaching, defending, and promoting infant baptism.

We have seen sermons, articles, and even an extensive series of articles examining infant baptism, covenant theology, and the question of baptismal latitude within the Presbyterian Church in America.

Some of the recent article titles include:

• How are the ordinances essential to the Reformed confessions?
• How are the ordinances part of regulated worship?
• What problems are supposed to be solved by creedal baptism?
• How does credo baptism distort the meaning of the ordinance?

That last title is particularly interesting. It is not simply defending infant baptism. It is suggesting that believer’s baptism distorts the very meaning of the ordinance.

We have also seen infant baptism receive prominent placement in SermonAudio’s Featured Sermon section.

Recently, a sermon entitled Why Do We Baptize Our Infants? (Baptism) by Rev. Joshua Engelsma appeared as a featured sermon. Today, November 12, 2026, the featured sermon is Baptizing Our Infants by Rev. William Langerak.

And my response to all of this?

Wonderful!

Seriously. I think this is great.

One of the things I love about SermonAudio is the opportunity to encounter theological perspectives, arguments, interpretations, and traditions that may differ from our own. We have an opportunity to listen, study, examine, question, and wrestle with Scripture.

We should welcome that opportunity.

I recently published an article entitled Why Do We Baptize Infants? Examining the Biblical Argument, and I suspect there may be many more articles and podcast episodes to come. Perhaps even a miniseries.

But today, I want to direct your attention to the featured sermon.

Listen to the Sermon

Title: Baptizing Our Infants

Speaker: Rev. William Langerak

Broadcaster: Trinity Protestant Reformed

Date: August 2, 2026

Scripture: Luke 18:1–27

Confessional Reference: Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 27, Questions and Answers 72–74

Listen here: Baptizing Our Infants — SermonAudio

I want to encourage everyone reading this article to listen to the sermon in its entirety.

Do not simply read my critique. Do not simply accept my conclusions. Listen to the sermon. Open your Bible. Examine the arguments. Look at the texts. Think through the theology.

And then ask yourself a very important question:

Has the preacher demonstrated from Scripture that Jesus commands us to baptize infants?

Because that is precisely the claim he makes.

He does not merely argue that infant baptism is permissible. He does not merely argue that it is consistent with Reformed theology. He does not merely argue that it is a historic practice of the Christian church.

He says:

“It’s commanded. It’s demanded. We must. We have to. Jesus requires it.”

Those are extraordinary words.

And extraordinary theological claims require careful biblical examination.

 

1. The Historical Claim Is Simply False

Early in the sermon, Langerak makes the following statement:

“For 1,500 years, the church baptized infants without question, knowing it was the right thing to do, knowing that this is what the church was even commanded to do.”

He then places the emergence of opposition to infant baptism in the middle of the sixteenth century.

There is an immediate problem.

That is not historically accurate.

Around AD 200, Tertullian wrote a work entitled On Baptism. In chapter 18, he explicitly argued that baptism should be delayed in certain circumstances, particularly in the case of little children.

He wrote:

“The delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.”

Tertullian goes on to question why children should be hurried toward baptism and discusses allowing them to grow and learn before receiving it.

You can read the chapter yourself:

Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 18

Now, let us be historically responsible.

Tertullian’s objection does not prove that the early church universally rejected infant baptism. Quite the opposite: the fact that he was objecting to the practice demonstrates that it existed.

Nor should we pretend that Tertullian was articulating a modern Baptist theology of baptism. His reasoning must be understood within his own historical and theological context.

But his testimony does demonstrate something absolutely devastating to the preacher’s historical claim:

Infant baptism was being questioned approximately 1,300 years before the Reformation.

We could also examine the discussion surrounding infant baptism in the third century, particularly Cyprian’s letter to Fidus, commonly numbered Epistle 64. There, a council addressed whether infants should be baptized before the eighth day.

The council affirmed that baptism should not be delayed until the eighth day. That is significant evidence for early infant baptism. But it also shows that questions concerning its administration were being discussed.

Furthermore, the sixteenth-century Anabaptist movement did not begin in the middle of the century. The famous baptisms associated with the Swiss Brethren in Zurich occurred in January 1525.

The history is more complicated than the sermon allows.

There is a legitimate historical argument for the antiquity of infant baptism. There is no legitimate historical argument for 1,500 years of absolutely unquestioned infant baptism.

And why does this matter?

Because the historical claim functions rhetorically. It creates the impression that the entire Christian church understood something perfectly for fifteen centuries, until a group of theological troublemakers arrived and began questioning what everyone had always known.

That is a powerful narrative.

It is also an inaccurate one.

We do not defend theological truth by misrepresenting church history.

2. What Do Taxes, Military Service, and Socialism Have to Do with Baptism?

Langerak proceeds to describe those who questioned infant baptism in the sixteenth century.

He discusses opposition to paying taxes, military service, swearing oaths, and associates these movements with communism, socialism, and rebellion against the government.

What is the purpose of this discussion?

We are supposed to be examining whether infants should be baptized.

Instead, we are being introduced to a collection of controversial political and social positions associated with various elements of the Radical Reformation.

There are genuine historical realities behind some of these references. Certain Anabaptists rejected military service and oath-taking. Some practiced communal ownership. The Münster rebellion was a real and tragic event.

But the Radical Reformation was not a single, uniform movement.

The Swiss Brethren, the Hutterites, the followers of Menno Simons, and the revolutionaries associated with Münster cannot simply be treated as though they were one indistinguishable group with one theology and one political program.

And here is the more fundamental issue.

Even if every single person who questioned infant baptism in the sixteenth century had been a violent political revolutionary, it would tell us absolutely nothing about whether infant baptism is commanded in Scripture.

The validity of an argument is not determined by the political beliefs, moral failures, or historical associations of the person making it.

If a person argues that Genesis 17 does not establish infant baptism, we must examine Genesis 17.

If a person argues that Luke 18 does not command infant baptism, we must examine Luke 18.

We do not answer their exegesis by telling everyone what happened in Münster.

That is not biblical interpretation. That is guilt by association.

And it has no place as a substitute for serious theological argumentation.

3. The Sermon Begins with a Confessional Answer

The sermon is structured around the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 27, particularly Question 74:

“Are infants also to be baptized?”

The answer is yes.

The catechism argues that infants are included in the covenant and church of God, that redemption and the Holy Spirit are promised to them, and that they should therefore receive baptism as the sign of the covenant, corresponding to circumcision in the Old Testament.

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with examining a catechism. There is nothing wrong with teaching church history, confessional theology, or systematic theology.

But we must recognize what is happening.

The sermon begins with a confessional conclusion that infant baptism is required, and then proceeds to demonstrate the conclusion through a particular understanding of covenant theology.

The danger is obvious.

Are we allowing Scripture to establish the doctrine, or are we allowing an established doctrine to determine how Scripture must be interpreted?

Those are not the same thing.

And before someone accuses me of attacking the Reformed tradition, let me make something clear.

I would ask the exact same question of a Baptist preacher, a Lutheran preacher, a Methodist preacher, or any other preacher.

The Baptist confession does not determine the meaning of Scripture.

The Heidelberg Catechism does not determine the meaning of Scripture.

The Lutheran Confessions do not determine the meaning of Scripture.

Our theological systems must be subjected to Scripture, not Scripture subjected to our theological systems.

The fact that a doctrine fits beautifully within a theological system does not establish that the doctrine is biblical.

A system can be internally consistent and still be built upon questionable assumptions.

That is why we must examine the assumptions.

4. “Show Me in the New Testament.” “Don’t Have To.”

Perhaps the most revealing moment in the sermon occurs when Langerak anticipates the objection that infant baptism must be demonstrated from the New Testament.

His response?

“Well, show me in the New Testament. Don’t have to. Don’t have to. It’s all over the old.”

Think about that statement.

We are discussing baptism, a practice instituted for the New Testament church, and we are being told that the preacher does not have to demonstrate the requirement to baptize infants from the New Testament.

Now, let us be fair.

The Old Testament is Scripture. It is the Word of God. It is authoritative. We absolutely must consider the relationship between the Old and New Testaments when developing our theology.

A doctrine does not become invalid simply because its argument includes Old Testament passages.

But that is not the issue.

The issue is whether the Old Testament passages being cited actually establish the New Testament practice being demanded.

Genesis 17 explicitly commands circumcision.

It identifies the recipients. It specifies male children. It specifies the eighth day. It includes males born in Abraham’s household and males purchased with money.

The command is clear.

Now, where is the corresponding command that establishes the following?

• Circumcision has been replaced by water baptism.
• The recipients of the covenant sign remain the same in the relevant respects.
• The sign now applies to both male and female infants.
• The eighth-day requirement no longer applies.
• The household provisions no longer apply in the same way.
• Children of Christian believers must receive this new covenant sign.

These conclusions may be argued through a particular understanding of covenant continuity. But they cannot simply be assumed.

If you are going to transfer a command from one covenantal administration into another, you must establish the textual warrant for the transfer.

You must explain what continues, what changes, what is discontinued, and why.

You cannot simply point to circumcision and declare infant baptism commanded.

The New Testament itself addresses circumcision extensively. Acts 15, Romans 4, Galatians, and Colossians 2 are among the passages that must be examined.

Colossians 2:11–12 is particularly important because it places circumcision and baptism in close proximity. But the circumcision Paul describes is a circumcision made without hands, associated with putting off the body of the flesh, burial with Christ, and resurrection through faith in the working of God.

Does that passage establish a relationship between circumcision and baptism? Certainly.

Does it explicitly command that Christian parents baptize their infants? No.

The question is whether the relationship Paul establishes warrants the entire covenantal argument being constructed.

That requires exegesis.

It cannot be settled by simply announcing that the answer is obvious.

5. Disagreeing with Infant Baptism Does Not Require Rejecting the Old Testament

The sermon also associates opposition to infant baptism with a radical separation between Israel and the church, describing it as a seed form of dispensationalism.

This is another significant problem.

There are Christians who affirm a substantial degree of covenant continuity and nevertheless reject infant baptism.

Reformed Baptists, for example, have developed covenantal arguments for believer’s baptism. One may agree or disagree with those arguments, but their existence demonstrates that the debate cannot be reduced to:

Accept covenant continuity and baptize infants, or reject covenant continuity and refuse to baptize infants.

That is a false dilemma.

One can affirm the unity of Scripture, salvation by grace through faith, the importance of the Abrahamic promises, and the fulfillment of redemptive history in Christ while still asking whether membership in the new covenant is defined in precisely the same way as membership in the Abrahamic covenant.

One can also question whether the church and Israel should be identified in the manner assumed by the sermon without believing that the Old Testament teaches a completely different way of salvation.

Classical dispensationalism, despite its distinctions between Israel and the church, generally affirms that salvation is by grace through faith, grounded ultimately in the work of Christ. It is not fairly summarized as one group being saved by receiving Canaan and another being saved by receiving heaven.

The preacher may disagree with dispensationalism.

He may disagree with Reformed Baptist covenant theology.

He may disagree with any theological system that challenges his conclusions.

But he must accurately represent those positions and demonstrate why his interpretation of Scripture is correct.

He cannot simply define his own understanding as the biblical understanding and dismiss every alternative.

6. Children in the Old Testament Do Not Establish Infant Baptism

Langerak spends considerable time demonstrating the importance of children throughout the Old Testament.

He discusses Noah and the ark, Abraham and his household, the crossing of the Red Sea, Moses, Samuel, Jacob, Daniel, and the promises concerning children.

There is much here that we can affirm.

Children matter to God.

Children are included in the biblical narrative.

God works in the lives of children.

Children are not insignificant, spiritually irrelevant, or beyond the reach of divine grace.

But what does any of this establish about the administration of Christian baptism?

The sermon appears to move from the presence and importance of children in redemptive history to the conclusion that infants must receive baptism.

That conclusion does not logically follow.

Consider Noah’s ark.

Genesis identifies the eight people who entered the ark: Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives.

The sons were married adults.

The narrative does not identify infants or young children among the passengers. If the sermon means that Noah’s offspring were present, that is certainly true. But their presence cannot be used as an example of infants receiving a covenantal benefit without acknowledging that these were adult offspring.

Consider Moses.

God preserved Moses as an infant. That is a beautiful account of divine providence.

But God’s preservation of Moses in an ark of bulrushes does not establish the recipients of Christian baptism.

Consider Samuel.

God called Samuel while he was still a child.

But the calling of Samuel does not establish infant baptism.

Consider Jacob.

God’s election of Jacob before his birth demonstrates that divine election does not depend upon human works.

But the election of Jacob before his birth does not establish infant baptism.

Consider the crossing of the Red Sea.

The presence of children within Israel is entirely consistent with the biblical account. Paul even draws a connection between the crossing and baptism in 1 Corinthians 10.

But notice the warning Paul develops. The Israelites experienced extraordinary covenantal privileges, yet God was displeased with many of them.

The passage demands careful examination of the relationship between outward participation, spiritual reality, and judgment.

It cannot simply be reduced to: children crossed the sea, therefore Christian parents must baptize their infants.

The question is not whether children are important to God. The question is whether God has commanded the church to administer baptism to infants.

Those are two different questions.

And answering the first does not automatically answer the second.

7. The Bathing Analogy Proves Nothing

At one point, the preacher asks his congregation what they would think of a mother who refused to wash her infant, arguing that only adults need to be cleansed.

The intended conclusion is that infants need spiritual cleansing just as adults do, and therefore infants should be baptized.

But this analogy does not establish the conclusion.

Yes, infants need cleansing from sin.

Yes, infants need salvation.

Yes, infants need Christ.

None of those statements is unique to the infant-baptism position.

A person who practices believer’s baptism can affirm every one of them.

The disagreement concerns whether Scripture commands the administration of water baptism to infants.

If the need for spiritual cleansing establishes the right to receive baptism, then why restrict baptism to the infants of Christian parents?

Do the infants of unbelievers not need cleansing?

Do they not need Christ?

Do they not need salvation?

The analogy proves too much.

The preacher’s actual argument requires an additional covenantal premise distinguishing the children of believers from the children of unbelievers.

That premise must be established independently.

The fact that babies need baths does not establish the covenantal status of babies.

It certainly does not establish a divine command to baptize them.

8. Luke 18: Where Is the Baptism?

Now we arrive at the primary biblical passage.

Luke 18:15–17:

“And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

 

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

 

Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.”

This is a wonderful passage.

It is also a passage that deserves to be understood on its own terms.

The Greek word translated “infants” in verse 15 is brephē, a form of brephos. The word can refer to babies or very young children. We should not attempt to evade the obvious fact that Luke specifically identifies infants.

They are brought to Jesus.

The disciples rebuke those bringing them.

Jesus welcomes the children.

He declares that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

He then teaches that the kingdom must be received as a little child.

All of that is in the text.

Now, what is not in the text?

Baptism.

There is no baptism.

There is no water.

There is no instruction concerning the administration of a sacrament.

There is no command that Christian parents baptize their infants.

There is no statement that this event establishes the recipients of Christian baptism.

In fact, the preacher himself acknowledges:

“It’s not baptism as such…”

But he then asks:

“Where do you bring the infants to Jesus to be blessed by Him? And the answer is baptism.”

Wait.

Where did that answer come from?

Did it come from Luke?

Did it come from Jesus’ words?

Did it come from the immediate context?

No.

The preacher has supplied a theological connection that the passage itself does not explicitly establish.

He moves from Jesus welcoming infants to the conclusion that the church brings infants to Jesus through baptism.

That connection may be proposed as a theological argument. It may be defended through additional passages and sacramental theology.

But it cannot simply be inserted into Luke 18 and then presented as though Jesus has commanded infant baptism.

Notice the difference between the actual command and the inferred command.

Jesus says:

Allow the little children to come to me.

The preacher says:

Jesus commands you to baptize your infants.

Those are not identical statements.

If the second is derived from the first, the connection must be demonstrated.

And it is precisely that connection which is assumed.

9. What Luke 18 Actually Does Teach

Interestingly, there is something in Langerak’s treatment of Luke 18 that I appreciate.

He recognizes that Luke has placed several important accounts together:

• The persistent widow.
• The Pharisee and the publican.
• The infants brought to Jesus.
• The rich ruler.

He asks what connects these accounts.

He identifies salvation by grace rather than human achievement as a central theme, particularly in the accounts of the Pharisee and publican, the infants, and the rich ruler.

There is something very powerful here.

The Pharisee presents his religious accomplishments.

The publican cries out for mercy.

The infants are brought to Jesus in a position of dependence.

The rich ruler asks what he must do to inherit eternal life and claims to have kept the commandments.

Jesus ultimately declares:

“The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” — Luke 18:27

There is a profound theological connection between human inability, divine mercy, and the reception of the kingdom.

The kingdom is not something we achieve through our accomplishments.

The publican does not go home justified because he has accumulated enough religious merit.

The rich ruler is confronted with the inadequacy of his claims to righteousness.

And the child illustrates receiving rather than achieving.

This is a wonderful opportunity to proclaim the distinction between law and gospel.

It is a wonderful opportunity to proclaim salvation by grace.

It is a wonderful opportunity to direct sinners away from their own righteousness and toward the mercy of God in Christ.

But why must we turn this into a command to baptize infants?

Why can we not allow Luke 18 to make the theological point Luke 18 is making?

A beautiful illustration of grace does not automatically establish a sacramental command.

The fact that infant baptism can be used to illustrate divine grace does not establish that infant baptism is required.

An illustration of a doctrine is not proof of a practice.

10. Does Rejecting Infant Baptism Undermine Salvation by Grace?

As the sermon progresses, the preacher argues that infant baptism powerfully demonstrates that salvation is entirely the work of God.

Infants cannot make a decision for Christ, articulate a confession of faith, or accomplish religious works.

Therefore, their inclusion in the church demonstrates that God chooses, saves, and acts by grace.

There is an important truth here.

Salvation is not grounded in the intellectual ability, religious accomplishments, moral improvement, or decision-making capacity of the sinner.

An infant is not saved because the infant performs a religious work.

An adult is not saved because the adult performs a religious work.

Salvation is grounded in Christ and His finished work.

But the sermon creates a questionable contrast between infant baptism and believer’s baptism.

It suggests that restricting baptism to those who confess faith risks making baptism about what the individual has done rather than what God has done.

That may accurately describe some presentations of baptism.

It does not accurately describe every theology of believer’s baptism.

A person can believe that faith is the gift of God, that regeneration is the work of God, that justification is by grace alone through faith alone, and that Christ’s righteousness is the sole ground of acceptance before God, while also believing that baptism should follow a profession of faith.

There is no necessary contradiction.

A profession of faith is not necessarily a claim of human merit.

The publican in Luke 18 makes a conscious appeal to God for mercy. Does that turn his justification into salvation by works?

The Ethiopian eunuch receives the preaching of Christ and asks to be baptized. Does that make his salvation a human achievement?

The Philippian jailer hears the gospel and is baptized. Does that make salvation dependent upon human merit?

Of course not.

The question of who should receive baptism must not be confused with the question of what accomplishes salvation.

The fact that an infant cannot consciously profess faith may make infant baptism a powerful illustration of monergistic salvation within a particular theological tradition.

But that does not demonstrate that believer’s baptism is inherently synergistic or that infant baptism is commanded.

The theology of salvation cannot be settled by constructing a false contrast between divine grace and the conscious reception of the gospel.

11. The Sacramental False Dilemma

Langerak presents two errors concerning baptism.

On one side, he identifies the error of assigning the power of regeneration and cleansing to the water or ceremony itself.

On the other side, he identifies the error of reducing baptism to a bare, empty sign that does nothing and offers no assurance.

He then presents the Reformed understanding of baptism as a divine pledge and a means of grace.

This deserves serious examination.

First, we should not caricature every theology of baptismal regeneration as though it teaches that ordinary water possesses magical power.

Roman Catholic theology does not officially teach that water regenerates by its own natural power. It understands the sacrament’s efficacy as grounded in Christ’s institution and divine action.

Lutheran theology likewise does not teach that ordinary water, considered apart from God’s Word and promise, possesses the power to forgive sins.

Luther’s Small Catechism explicitly distinguishes mere water from water included in God’s command and connected with God’s Word.

One can disagree with Catholic or Lutheran sacramental theology. But one must accurately represent what those traditions actually teach.

Second, we should not assume that every theology rejecting baptismal regeneration reduces baptism to an insignificant human ceremony.

A sign instituted by Christ is not necessarily a meaningless sign.

A sign can teach.

A sign can testify.

A sign can remind.

A sign can proclaim the gospel.

A sign can strengthen faith through the truth it communicates.

The actual theological debate concerns the nature of baptism’s efficacy, the relationship between the sign and the reality, the role of faith, and the promises associated with baptism.

Those questions require careful examination of passages such as Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:1–4, Galatians 3:27, Titus 3:5, Colossians 2:11–12, and 1 Peter 3:21.

We should not resolve those questions by reducing all available positions to two extremes and then declaring that our preferred confessional position occupies the only acceptable middle ground.

That is not a sufficient theological argument.

12. What Exactly Is God Promising in Infant Baptism?

Perhaps the most important theological and pastoral issue in the sermon concerns assurance.

Langerak argues that baptism is a divine pledge and sign.

He explains that the believer is to look at baptism and believe that just as the body was washed with water, Christ has washed away the believer’s sins.

That sounds wonderfully reassuring.

But then we encounter the following statement:

“The assurance is not that God promises to save all our children. It is not the assurance to us or everyone or anyone that God will save everyone that has the water administered.”

And later:

“He saves whomever he saves. He shows mercy to whom he shows mercy and he hardens who he will.”

Now we have a question.

What exactly is God promising to the individual infant being baptized?

If baptism is a divine pledge of cleansing from sin, but some who receive baptism are never cleansed from sin, what is the precise content of the pledge given to those individuals?

Is God promising that this particular child has been cleansed?

Is God promising that this particular child will be cleansed?

Is God promising that this child will receive saving faith?

Or is God declaring what is true of those who are elect and receive the spiritual reality signified by baptism?

These are not insignificant distinctions.

Reformed theology has developed distinctions between the outward sign and the inward reality, between the administration of the covenant and its saving benefits, and between receiving a sacrament outwardly and receiving its benefits through faith.

The Protestant Reformed tradition has its own distinctive understanding of the covenant and election that must also be considered.

I am not suggesting that no Reformed theologian has ever attempted to answer these questions.

I am suggesting that the sermon leaves an enormous pastoral question that cannot simply be dismissed.

Imagine a person who has struggled for decades with assurance of salvation.

They hear that baptism is God’s personal pledge of the washing away of their sins.

Then they hear that not everyone who receives baptism has their sins washed away.

They hear that some baptized children may ultimately be lost.

They hear that God saves whomever He wills and hardens whomever He wills.

What is the person supposed to do with their baptism?

Can they look at it and say, “Here is God’s promise to me”?

Or must they first determine whether they possess the saving faith or election that makes the promise applicable to them?

If the latter, then the question of assurance has not necessarily been resolved. It may simply have been relocated.

The issue is no longer whether I was baptized.

The issue becomes whether I am one of those for whom the baptism signifies a saving reality.

And how do I know that?

This is not an abstract theological puzzle.

It is a question that can torment real people.

I have recently been reminded of just how devastating decades of uncertainty concerning salvation can be. People can spend years examining their lives, their faith, their works, their motives, and their spiritual experiences, desperately trying to determine whether they are truly saved.

The church must be extraordinarily careful that its theology of assurance does not direct people back into the very uncertainty from which the gospel should deliver them.

The ground of our acceptance before God is not our religious accomplishments.

It is not the quality of our faith.

It is not our ability to discover the secret decree of election.

It is the finished work of Jesus Christ and His righteousness.

Any theology of baptism and assurance must be examined in light of that reality.

13. What Has Actually Been Demonstrated?

Let us review what the sermon has established and what it has not established.

Has it demonstrated that children are important to God?

Yes.

Has it demonstrated that children are present throughout redemptive history?

Yes.

Has it demonstrated that Jesus welcomed infants?

Yes.

Has it demonstrated that salvation is by grace rather than human achievement?

It has made a substantial argument for that truth.

Has it demonstrated that infant baptism fits within the covenantal and sacramental theology articulated by the Heidelberg Catechism?

Yes.

Has it demonstrated that infant baptism has a long history within Christianity?

It has asserted that history, although its presentation requires significant correction.

But has it demonstrated that Jesus commands Christian parents to baptize their infants?

No.

The sermon has presented a collection of historical claims, confessional assertions, covenantal assumptions, biblical illustrations, theological inferences, and sacramental arguments.

What it has not adequately demonstrated is the movement from those premises to the absolute conclusion:

“It’s commanded. It’s demanded. We must. We have to. Jesus requires it.”

That is the problem.

There is a difference between demonstrating that a practice is compatible with a theological system and demonstrating that a practice is commanded by God.

There is a difference between demonstrating that a practice can illustrate a biblical truth and demonstrating that Scripture requires the practice.

There is a difference between demonstrating that the church has historically practiced something and demonstrating that Christ has commanded it.

Those distinctions matter.

Especially when we are speaking to Christian parents and telling them what Jesus requires of them.

14. Are We Willing to Wrestle with the Text?

I want to return to where we began.

I am glad SermonAudio is featuring these sermons.

I am glad these articles are being published.

I am glad we have an opportunity to examine the arguments for infant baptism.

I hope people who have always rejected infant baptism will listen carefully to those defending it.

I hope people who have always accepted infant baptism will listen carefully to those questioning it.

And I hope all of us will be willing to examine our own assumptions.

I spent more than two decades pastoring a Baptist church. I am now attending a Lutheran congregation. I have spent years examining theological systems, traditions, confessions, and competing interpretations of Scripture.

And if there is one thing I have learned, it is how easily we can become convinced that our theological system is simply what the Bible says.

We stop distinguishing between the text and our interpretation of the text.

We stop distinguishing between an explicit biblical statement and a theological inference.

We stop distinguishing between what Scripture commands and what our tradition requires.

And once those distinctions disappear, meaningful theological examination becomes almost impossible.

I am not asking you to reject infant baptism because I have raised questions about this sermon.

I am asking you to recognize that those questions deserve answers.

If you believe infant baptism is commanded, demonstrate it.

If you believe baptism replaces circumcision in a manner that requires the baptism of infants, establish that connection.

If you believe Luke 18 commands infant baptism, show how the text establishes that command.

If you believe baptism is a personal divine pledge of salvation while also believing that some baptized infants will never be saved, explain precisely what God is promising and to whom.

Do not simply tell me that the church has always believed it.

Do not simply tell me that the catechism says it.

Do not simply tell me that it is obvious.

Do not simply tell me that questioning it demonstrates a defective understanding of grace, the covenant, or the relationship between the Testaments.

Show me.

Show me from Scripture.

And let us be willing to examine the evidence, follow the argument, and acknowledge where the text ends and our theological conclusions begin.

Because when we stand before a congregation and declare that Jesus requires something, we have assumed an extraordinary responsibility.

We are no longer simply offering a theological opinion.

We are claiming to speak with divine authority.

And if we are going to claim that authority, we had better be able to demonstrate that the command actually comes from Christ.

 

Continue the Conversation

Listen to the featured sermon:

Baptizing Our Infants — Rev. William Langerak

Read our previous article:

Why Do We Baptize Infants? Examining the Biblical Argument

Explore more biblical studies, theological discussions, critical sermon reviews, and articles from Theology Central:

TheologyCentral.net | TheologyCentral.org

Theology Central — A look at the world from a theological perspective. A continuing journey of wrestling with Scripture, theology, and life.