Baptism - Without Delay

A Critique of Baptismal Hesitation Among Youth

Baptism is often a sensitive topic within the Churches of Christ. This is the case because members of the Churches of Christ recognize the importance of baptism as a salvific means of grace from God that cleanses us of our sins and grants us the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

This true doctrine is often paired with the practice of infant baptism; however, the churches of Christ are not pedobaptists. Rather, they are credobaptists, or Christians who only baptize those who have an active knowledge of their sin. Now, this article is not a defense for this practice of credobaptism or a polemic against pedobaptism; instead, I want to critique a certain practice that is active and, in my opinion, dangerous when the combination of credobaptism and baptismal regeneration occurs. This practice involves the extended delay of baptism for credobaptist youth.

Make no mistake, I do not believe this critique undermines the truth of credobaptism or baptismal regeneration (I presently believe in both of these); however, when instantiated improperly, an active tension exists between these two doctrines that must be worked through and acknowledged in order that they may be rationally sound. This is because, of course, the belief that baptism does save and is nominally necessary for salvation must be reconciled with the fact that children who are of an age to recognize their sin, erring, and moral fault require the salvific grace that the sacrament of baptism bestows upon them. They are indeed knowledgeable of their sin and of the erring of their ways from a (somewhat) young age; make no doubt about that (please quickly note here, as it will be important for framing this entire conversation, that I do not mean to say that my use of children is indicative of all children, rather only children that are capable of fulfilling the prerequisites for baptism, of which we will get into shortly). Regardless, from the instant we, as children, were conscious of our transgression against those around us, we were also conscious of them towards God. If we were not, and we were raised in a Christian environment, then the fault lies with the parents of said naive child for not teaching them about sin in such a way that they may understand the danger of their sinful actions and thus the offense they are to the Lord. But alas, I say this not to be needlessly harsh, but to point out a vital issue within Christian upbringing. We cannot shy away from teaching children about how their morally incorrect actions cause separation from God. Regardless, most of us would say that young people are, indeed, aware that their “bad” ways are an affront not only to their parents, friends, and families, but also to God. And most have truly raised their children to know this fact, and thus I am unafraid of using rash language in building to the crescendo of the issue at play here, as it would only offend a small minority (at least I would hope).

All of this is sufficient to say that we must not be confused; children do realize they have sinned in the sight of the Lord. We tend to believe those who are younger to be much less knowledgeable on this subject than they truly are - and that is a major part of this issue. However, I have written on this enough now to continue on to the meat of the topic here. Or, at the very least, I hope I have demonstrated clearly here that there are at least a few areas needing improvement within our congregations and practices - especially those as important as the blessing that is the sacrament of baptism.

The New Testament’s Baptismal Pattern

When surveying the various passages of scripture that speak on baptism, we find many fascinating details that are of vital importance. Of these, the one that is of chief interest at the present moment is that of the swiftness of baptism of new converts to the faith. There are many examples of this; however, I do not want to exhaust all of them here, as some of these verses will serve multiple purposes further into this article. The first verse I would like to look at here is possibly the most notorious of all the verses. Acts 2:37-42 (ESV, emphasis added) reads:

“37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 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.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. ”

Let us take note here of a few important key details. First, as those for whom this article is intended will agree with already, baptism is salvific. Baptism is the point at which one receives the remission of sins; as such those without the blessed sacrament are without forgiveness insofar as they are knowing of their trespasses. Keep these two notes in mind.

Second, the gift of the Holy Spirit is bestowed upon those believers who accept the grace of God extended to us through baptism. The Holy Spirit, being given here, is therefore seemingly not with those who have not undergone baptism.

Third, the gift of baptism is here presented to not only those who are adults, but also their children. I am not an expert in ancient Greek, and I do not purport to be, so I will not provide my own Greek grammatical exploration of the Greek word “teknon” that is used here when referring to “children”. Rather, I will make a much more modest claim here - the word is used in such a way that would not exclude children, as the only preconditions mentioned are those listed in verse 38. That is, the recipient must “repent” before their baptism.

This verse (and Greek word) is frequently used by those who promote both pedo and credo baptism to bolster their views. This, in and of itself, is an indication that perhaps the solution is not as simple as it seems. Seeing as this is the case we find ourselves to be at now, I propose a simple, and commonly accepted, middle ground. I mentioned just a few sentences ago, there is a clear indication in verse 38 that a precondition for baptism is that one must first “repent”. Given this, the wording would indicate that any of the following commands or statements made would be subject to this precondition. Therefore, the mention of “children” here would seemingly indicate that all children (not a restricted descendant category or an inclusive infant one) that are capable of fulfilling this precondition may be included in those who are permitted to partake of the gift of baptism. Essentially, there is no reason to believe that the “children” mentioned in verse 39 cannot refer to both the descendants of those present and the children who are present (and knowledgeable of their erring).

Fourth and finally, there are two notes to recognize here. There were 3,000 people whose sins were washed away that day, and those who were baptized did not have perfect doctrinal knowledge at the time of baptism. These points will be more important later, but for now, please keep this in mind: Is there any guarantee that all three thousand of these new converts perfectly understood the depths of theology and the spiritual implications of baptism? Can we be certain that they had been taught all of the apostles’ teachings prior to baptism? I would argue not, as it seems to be the fact that they had not even heard of baptism, its worth, or the importance of it until they uttered the fateful words of “Brothers, what shall we do?” Additionally, Peter does not delve deep into the language around the saving nature of Baptism here either. Thus, I believe it is fair to say that one does not need to have a perfect understanding of all doctrinal issues surrounding baptism in order for their baptism to be valid. This may seem like an odd point to make, or even a weak one, but please know that it is an important piece of this puzzle. So then, we will study this deeper later on.

Another vital verse is Acts 16:33, where we read:

‘29 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.’

For this discussion, we need to make a few things clear. First off, it is key to note that, most likely, the jailer in these verses was a Pagan prior to the events of Acts 16. We can be fairly confident that this is the case, as Roman practice did not typically tolerate Christian worship and religious following until the 2nd century and would not adopt it until the 4th century, while Paul was jailed in the first century. On the religious practices of Roman soldiers around this time, Dr. Matthew Dillon writes:

“Another distinction was the growth and spectacular expansion of what can be called epigraphic and dedicatory habits amongst the soldiery throughout the entire Empire. ‘Voices’ of soldiers, as individuals or groups, are heard to a degree never encountered in the Republic: their dedications, vows, and sacrifices are inscribed on stone as stelae and altars. Inscriptions speak to the historian of a soldier’s individual beliefs, hopes, and fears. Soldiers and their commanders trusted not only in Rome’s traditional gods and rituals, but in the gods of their own ethnic backgrounds, if these were of non-Italian origin. In addition, many soldiers also worshipped ‘new gods’ such as Mithras and Jupiter Dolichenus, and, from the second century AD on, Christ. Emperors adopted Christianity in the fourth century and went to war with its emblems, while retaining the pagan symbolism of the goddess of Victory, now incorporated with the Christian symbol of the chi-rho. Soon, emperors went to war with the assistance they believed of military saints. Hercules receives special attention as a war god in the imperial period, and is even invoked by soldiers serving there as the savior of Britain. The cult of the healing god Aesculapius also spread to the remotest corners of the Empire and served the soldiers’ need for a healing deity” - (Matthew Dillon, Religion in the Roman Army, in Religion and Classical Warfare: Archaic and Classical Greece, Pen & Sword Military, 2018, ch. 1)

Therefore, we can confidently say that, because he and his family were likely Pagans, they did not know much (or any at all) about Christian belief and doctrine. However, if someone rejects this claim of paganism, so be it, as we do not need this fact to be present for the following point to be successful. As we can see from the verse, at the very least, the jailer was unfamiliar with Christian faith at all, and thus, his family would also be. Yet, even with this fact being present, he and his family are hastily baptized following their confession of faith in Christ “within the same hour”. Can we say that both the jailer and his family could have gained a full or even an extensive understanding of the meaning, weight, and importance of baptism within this short amount of time? I think not, and I believe you would also come to this conclusion if you have ever had the opportunity to sit down with someone and explain the Gospel and baptism to them. That is not even to bring up the fact that this was not a single man to explain this to, but his entire family, and, on top of all of this, it all happened within the same hour of an earthquake, which had surely caused turmoil. Suffice it to say, we again see that although faith in Christ was required and a statement of faith, seemingly, made, there was not needed a deep understanding of the theological implications of baptism immediately upon the moment of their baptisms as they were “baptized at once”. Please also keep in mind that this verse would not exclude children who were also capable of expressing a belief in Christ, as the verse does not exclude them from the “household” language.

There are more verses I considered adding here; however, I think these two are enough to ensure that the important points here are made. These points are:

1. The Bible suggests that baptism is not to be delayed extensively.

2. It is not suggested that an in-depth knowledge of baptism or theology must be known at the point of baptism.

3. The prerequisite for baptism is faith in God (the Trinity as a whole), a confession of this faith, and the recognition of sin and subsequent repentance of (in other words, improvement from) one’s erring ways.

4. Children are not excluded from fulfilling the aforementioned conditions.

Children and the Prerequisites of Baptism

Knowing that these prerequisites are in place, it is only natural that we ask, “Although children may not be excluded from fulfilling the stated conditions, when do we know the proper time for them to be fulfilled?” That, my friends, is one of the most uncomfortable and divisive questions that can be asked within our paradigm (hence why I have delayed the writing of this article for so long). Regardless, we cannot let the fear of offense keep us from examining these important issues in-depth. This problem of timing for children and their baptism is one of the most prevalent critiques made towards those who affirm both credobaptism and baptismal regeneration. Critics will offer opinions stating that “Because there is no set, outlined age for baptism of people, it reduces to arbitrariness. How can you know when someone is actually ready for baptism under that paradigm?” This is the style of critique most often made, but does it hold? The answer to this is “It depends”. This critique is one that many cannot answer without appealing to arbitrary, undefined standards for baptism that don’t seem to be universally binding (arbitrary age of accountability, etc.). As such, many attempting to respond to this critique say that the person will simply “Know when they are ready”. But this does not answer the questions - how does one know when they are ready? Simply restating that it is “when they are ready” is fallacious, incoherent, and circular.

So then, whether or not the critics are correct in making this objection truly depends on 1) the manner in which the defender of credobaptism and baptismal regeneration responds and 2) the manner in which they instantiate these doctrines in actual practice. Again, if one responds saying that they will “know when they know” or by appealing to another arbitrary category (i.e., the age of accountability), then the objector has succeeded in exposing the arbitrary nature of that belief. However, if one instead responds that one is ready for baptism when they meet the requirements for baptism as outlined within the New Testament, the arbitrariness dispenses (to some degree, at least). So then, how do children interact with these prerequisites? To restate, the conditions mentioned earlier are: faith in God (the Trinity as a whole), a confession of this faith, and the recognition (repentance) of one’s erring ways against the Lord (Acts 2:38, Acts 18:8, etc.). Let us examine each of these.

To begin, are children capable of truly believing in Christ? The answer, as I imagine most would agree, is a resounding yes. If they are incapable, why should we teach them about Him until they age significantly? We must remember that faith is not a mere matter of intellectual maturity, but of spiritual perception and submission, which is perfectly possible for children. They are, after all, expected to submit to their parents (Ephesians 6:1-3). We also find that Christ indicates that children are capable of belief in Him, as He expresses strong language of their belief in Matthew 18:6, where we read:

“6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

It is key here to note that Christ importantly states that the children both believe in Him and are capable of sin, which by proxy means they believe He is Lord and that they are capable of moral fault. I do, however, want to insert a qualifier here - I do not mean to state that if a child believes in Christ, they are automatically ready for baptism; that is not the case. As we have already gone over, the prerequisites go deeper than that. Instead, I am simply making the point that if young children and their belief is affirmed here, then it would follow logically that the beliefs of older children are also valid. If children are raised, taught, guided, and instructed in the Bible and its moral ways, then we should have no doubt they are capable of understanding that Christ is indeed Lord and that we are all capable of sinning against Him. Truly, if a young person answers “no” to the question “Is Jesus God?” or a similar question, the fault does not fall on the child for a lack of understanding, but on those of us who are of adulthood for failing to proclaim that truth of His divinity and role as Savior more often. A child is capable of holding or withholding beliefs in many things, just as adults are; thus, to posit their ignorance of Christ as Lord compared to all other beliefs they hold is unnecessary and dangerous. I say again, if a child believes that Christ is not Lord, it is our fault, not theirs. Thus, it is perfectly safe to say that Christ indicates children as capable of possessing a saving faith and affirms the validity of the belief they hold in Him. In fact, Christ sees their actions and beliefs as so honorable that He urges His followers to imitate them. Just prior to the previous verse, Jesus stated:

“At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” - Matthew 18:1-4

In light of this statement, it would seem odd that Christ would be telling us to “become as children” if they, especially in this context, are incapable of producing a true trust in the Lord. Christ knows that children are more than capable of trusting and believing in Him; that is clear from these verses, but more so, He understands that their belief is more genuine than many adults. It would follow also, then, that they, containing this belief, would also be capable of expressing it. How else could we be sure that they do maintain a belief if it cannot be expressed? As such (and as common sense would “tell” us), it seems that young people are also capable of fulfilling this prerequisite for baptism. These, however, are not the controversial aspects of pre-baptismal readiness that are discussed among those youth who are baptized. Rather, oddly enough, it is the final one that makes many uneasy: the ability of children to recognize their sin against the Lord and repent of it.

So, we must ask here, “Can children fulfill this duty?” I believe the answer to this question is quite simple: of course, they can. To begin with the first part, it seems obvious that children are capable, while still somewhat young, of understanding when they have committed a morally wrong action. This understanding not only stems from our own personal experience as children (when we were so), but also from the genuine remorse that children do express. As such, it follows that they are capable of understanding, if raised in a consistent, Christian household, that the reason the action truly is morally wrong is because it is a sin, or in other words, because they have not only trespassed against the moral system, but against the Lord. They need not understand the deep, philosophical intricacies about how, exactly, the Lord is the source of the objective moral system. In fact, I would argue that the vast majority of laypeople in the church who have been Christians for 50+ years and have been baptized in an efficacious fashion do not know the depth of the philosophical justification of moral values in Christ. How could they when so many Christians are deficient in their philosophical understandings? I say this because simply stating “God is Good!”, while true, does not serve as a proper (or philosophically rigorous) justification of moral values. Thus, it is safe to say that while all adults possess some knowledge of moral values and their transgressions of these values and the Lord, they do not have a completely precise, epistemologically comprehensive, or ontologically accurate understanding of how, exactly, these morals are justified in God at a foundational level. I do not mention this because I want to “mock” anyone for not understanding these complex topics; in fact, quite the opposite - I say this to show that just as many adults do not need to know about the in-depth nature of moral values to know that their moral faults are against God, neither do children. The knowledge that moral wrongs are indeed sins against the Lord does not require complex reasoning - it is much simpler than some seem to think. The whole of the subject is complex, but that does not mean all of it is. Those who are younger are capable of knowing their actions are sinful if they have been raised to know so. Just as I mentioned at the beginning of this writing, if a child is ignorant of this fact, the fault lies with those involved in the teaching, raising, and spiritual growth of the child. I again want to be clear in stating this: I truly believe that the number of children who are ignorant of these facts in this way is minuscule in scale, as most parents do a great job in teaching their children in these ways; thus, I, again, am unafraid of offending anyone here. Thus, to summarize this extended section, I simply want to make the point known that although a recognition of sin is a precondition of baptism, a deep or intensive understanding of its intricacies is not.

If, then, a child is indeed capable of recognizing their sin, the next, and more controversial, question that must be asked is “Are they capable of repenting of these sins?”. Here we find the crux of the issue at hand, as many do not believe children can demonstrate genuine repentance. But is this a proper belief to hold? That is what needs to be tested. To start, repentance means simply that one recognizes an error and changes their way as a result of said error. As such, as we have discussed, the objectors to child repentance are most focused on that latter part of repentance as they do not believe children are capable of turning away from sin towards the right way of life, that is, the Christian life. A simple way to summarize their concern is that they are unsure if children are capable of truly “turning their lives around”. However, I feel as if this concern is often a misplaced one, or atleast, one that is misreasoned to. For example, the reasoning that children are incapable of moral growth or change is in stark contrast to the practice of discipling them. If, after all, children are incapable of changing their ways, then why do we discipline them when they err? Every parent (or authority over a child) disciplines precisely because they believe their child is capable of reforming behavior, not because they are unable to do so. If a child steals a toy, speaks disrespectfully, or tells a lie, we correct them so that they will not repeat the action, so that they will change their way and grow morally. This is no different than when a friend or loved one “calls us out” for a wrong action, as if the “call out” is done out of love, then it is being done so that we may grow from it and change our way of life. So then, to discipline them while at the same time claiming they are incapable of change would be contradictory. In turn, this reveals a deeper flaw, as those who say children cannot repent are actually affirming the very thing they deny. As in practice, they do treat children as capable of reform, since they expect discipline to yield positive “fruits”. On the other hand, if repentance is impossible, then all parental discipline is truly pointless. It is not pointless, however, because we know that discipline works (albeit imperfectly in some aspects in both young and old); it follows that children are also capable of repentance in the biblical sense (given the prior discussions to this point, that is) - recognizing wrongdoing, turning away from errors, and growing morally.

Most importantly, I would argue, scripture is supportive of this understanding of growth in children. Some passages are explicitly written with the assumption that children and youth can be corrected and can change course. Take, for example, Proverbs 22:6, which states:

“Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

Or, for another perspective on this topic, Proverbs 29:15:

“The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.”

These both frame discipline as an avenue of growth for children, as instruction leading to repentance on the part of the child. In effect, these scriptures (and others) display the potential for true moral growth. If, on the other hand, they do not point towards or serve this purpose, then these disciplinary measures would be meaningless and, arguably, immoral. Yet we need not fear this, as the wisdom written here is done so for a reason, because children are capable of knowing they have done wrong and that they need to improve. This is not foreign to the New Testament either, as even there we see that moral duties are prescribed to children. Take, for example, Ephesians 6:1-2:

‘1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”’

Here, Paul does not address them as incapable of fulfilling the duty assigned to them; in fact, he believes they are able to do both this moral task, but also to understand even deeper reasons behind the task. Considering all of these details, we can quite easily form a logical syllogism for those who believe children cannot fulfill this duty and show why it simply cannot work.

P1. Repentance requires the ability to change one’s way of life.

P2. Children cannot change their way of life.

C. Therefore, children cannot repent.

But the second premise here is demonstrably false, as empirical evidence (in this case, the everyday experience of parenting, teaching, or instilling morals into children), moral evidence, and biblical evidence all show that children both are capable of and do change their ways. Therefore, the conclusion cannot and does not logically follow. The reductio ad absurdum here is quite simple - if we truly accepted the premise that children cannot change, then moral training, discipline, and even Christ’s words about their belief would be nullified and arguably immoral (yet we know they are not).

Thus, it is not only possible but biblically consistent to say that children, especially when raised in the knowledge of God, are capable of true repentance. Not only this, but we also see that, given this conclusion, they are capable of fulfilling all of the prerequisites of baptism. Children may not express all of this with the theological nuance of a seminarian, but repentance and faith are not defined by advanced vocabulary. If they were, I would be inclined to believe that there are hundreds of thousands of invalid examples of repentance that exist in the world. Instead, they are defined by a sincere recognition of sin, a genuine turning toward righteousness, and a belief in Christ as Lord. Funnily enough, in this sense, many children demonstrate more authentic repentance and faith than adults, for their remorse is often immediate, unfeigned, and, as Christ Himself said of them and their faith, humble.

The Child’s Need of Grace, Our Pastoral Responsibility, And Human Fallibility

When we consider all of the previous discussion points, we must conclude that a child who is capable of, knowledgeable of, and able to turn away from their sin(s) is, indeed, in a position of being accountable before God for those sins against Him. Being so, they are, at this point, no longer able to appeal to an invincible ignorance of sins to God; thus, as all sinners are (as that is what they are when they can recognize their sin, like the rest of us), the child is now in dire need of God’s gift of Grace. The Grace that is, of course, gifted to us (along with the Holy Spirit) through the blessed sacrament of Baptism. This may seem harsh, as many modern people today view children as completely spotless and innocent even up to their teenage years! This, however, is not only theologically impossible if we are to take the Word of God at what it states, but also a modern convention, not an ancient one. The biblical writers did not imagine children as “blank slates” of moral purity until some arbitrary “age of accountability” (of which seems to have no standard or basis), but as people who, like the rest of us, required correction, instruction, and forgiveness (as we just previously discussed). We must remember that children contain the same nature of sinfulness as the rest of us. David clearly communicates this in Psalm 51:5, where he writes:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Furthermore, it is illustrated in Proverbs 22:15 that children also battle with the lack of goodness, as we read there that:

“Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.”

Sufficient to say that if Scripture itself acknowledges the sinfulness of children, and if our daily experience confirms that children not only sin but are capable of recognizing and repenting of it, then to withhold baptism based on their supposed “innocence” is to embrace a sort of cultural fiction rather than biblical truth. I would also say that it is, in no uncertain terms, harsh and dangerous to do so, as it is indeed this very awareness of sin - this moment of awakening to guilt - that places the child in peril and creates the urgent need for grace. To say otherwise is to reduce the sacrament of baptism to a rite for the intellectually mature, rather than the divine remedy for sinners that it is. Moreover, the idea that baptism should be delayed until children are older and more “theologically developed” finds absolutely no grounding in Scripture. As we have already noted, those in Acts who received baptism did not have comprehensive knowledge of its theology. The three thousand baptized on Pentecost had only just learned that Jesus was Lord and Messiah, but that was enough (Acts 2:36-41)! The Philippian jailer and his household were baptized “at once” (Acts 16:33), in the middle of the night, hardly after a seminary course on or a deep dive into the theology of the sacrament. Knowledge of sin, trust in Christ, and the capability for repentance were the conditions, not intellectual mastery of doctrine. We have gone over that children are capable of fulfilling these requirements and key issues at a young age; thus, it is odd and outside of the bounds of normativity (and unbiblical) to suggest they must have different requirements upon them simply because of their age.

Furthermore, one might argue that we should delay the baptism of these youth still. In that case, I must ask simply - do you really believe that baptismal regeneration, that is, that baptism saves, is absolutely true or only true when it is convenient? Speaking of that convenience, to appeal to this arbitrary nature of the salvific nature of baptism would be to commit a variation of the taxi-cab fallacy, or, in other words, to ride the taxi of “baptismal regeneration” all the way up until it is no longer convenient to do so. This then reduces the truth of baptism’s salvific nature to, again, a state of subjective arbitrariness rather than universal truth and application. So, the question must be asked at this point: Do we believe that all those who know of and can repent from their sin require baptism or not? Here lies the true and present danger: if a child has reached the point of accountability, that is, knowing their sin, desiring forgiveness, and willing to turn toward Christ, yet we withhold baptism, we leave them under the burden of sin with no remedy applied. In effect, we acknowledge that they are sinners but deny them the God-ordained means of cleansing. We deny them the grace that God is so freely offering. We deny them the gift of the Holy Spirit. What sense is there in recognizing a child’s capacity to disobey and to repent in daily life, yet insisting that the moment they repent before God, they must wait indefinitely to receive His grace? This is not an abstract, hyper-theoretical issue either. Some delay their baptism even when they are teenagers and in need of baptism, as they are most certainly aware of their trespasses in the sight of God, because of the fear of being baptized “too young”. They may “psych” themselves out over whether or not they truly understand baptism deeply enough to be baptized - even at ages such as 13 years old and onward!

Thus it is, I fear, not only inconsistent but perilous that we so often do deny or discourse baptism to those who so dearly need it. To delay baptism for such a child is not a neutral act of caution; instead, it is to stand in the way of grace, keeping them at arm’s length from the forgiveness Christ freely offers us. If baptism is indeed for the remission of sins, then every day a repentant child remains unbaptized is another day they remain outside the very gift God has provided to deal with their guilt. Every day they do so is to put them in danger, truly. Every time we discourage their request for God’s grace or disregard their need, we withhold them from coming to Christ. And every time we do these things, we disobey Christ, as He said Himself:

“Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:14)

We must also not fall into the snare of fear when considering that a child’s lack of theological sophistication could somehow invalidate their baptism. If that were the case, then no baptism would ever be valid, for none of us possesses a perfect, infallible understanding at the moment we enter the water. Furthermore, this is not the standard scripture presents. Instead, the one it presents is not exhaustive knowledge but simple faith, confession, and repentance. To insist on more is to place a burden upon children (and read extra into scripture) that neither the apostles ever placed upon adults. To add on here, if our children are found lacking in understanding here, the failure is not theirs but ours (as I have mentioned previously). God has charged parents and the church alike with the duty of instruction. For example, Deuteronomy 6:7-8 states:

“6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.”

And Ephesians 6:4:

“Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”

If a 13-year-old in our congregations still lacks understanding of sin, their trespass of sin against the Lord, and that they are guilty of this sin and need to repent, this does not prove that children are incapable of readiness. Instead, it proves something even more embarrassing: that we have neglected our pastoral responsibility. To then use their ignorance as grounds for delay only compounds the failure: we first withhold clear teaching, then we withhold the forgiveness that baptism offers, leaving them in danger and blaming them for what we should have supplied. This, however, is where the danger of delay is most visible. It does seem that in attempting to “protect” children from an invalid baptism, we may actually be the ones invalidating our own obedience to Christ’s command. Baptism does not work merely because of our comprehension; it works because of God’s promise. Just as bread nourishes even when the eater knows nothing of nutrition, or as a vaccine works on a baby though they may not understand what it is, so baptism saves not because the candidate has mastered its theology but because God has chosen to meet us there (given that they meet the prerequisites as discussed earlier). To turn children away until they “know enough” is to confuse baptism for an intellectual hurdle rather than what it truly is, that is, the gift of grace extended to sinners who recognize their need and turn to Christ. Baptism is not a reward for acquiring a mastered epistemic theology of baptism; it is a gift from God for those who are capable of fulfilling its prerequisites. I say this not for insult, as I do not believe that the average, in this example, 13-year-old in our congregations lacks this knowledge, but rather that if this is the case, then we must address the issue at its root.

Therefore, the question is not whether young people can believe, confess, and repent (we have already established that they can). Rather, the question is whether we will allow fear, hesitation, and arbitrary human standards to keep them from receiving the grace that God so freely offers us via His life, death, and resurrection in our stead. To delay baptism under these conditions is not caution but obstruction, as it is to hinder the little ones whom Christ Himself welcomed, and in doing so, we disobey His word: “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” (again, Matthew 19:14).

Conclusion: Baptism is the Beginning, so Why Wait?

The apostle Paul reminds us in Romans 6:3-4 that baptism unites us with Christ’s death and resurrection, where we begin to walk in newness of life, stating:

“3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

Baptism is not the crowning achievement of Christian maturity; it is the new birth that sets the whole life of discipleship in motion. It is also the beginning of a journey to gain knowledge about Christ, His word, and Christianity as a whole, for as Matthew 28:18-20 reads:

‘And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”’

Notice the emphasis and order there - those who were baptized were baptized first, prior to learning all there is to know about the teachings of Christ (and thus, again, Christianity). In essence, baptism is the starting line, not the diploma, yet oftentimes, we treat it as if it is. This is a significant error. When we delay baptism until a child (or even a teenager) has proven “enough” theological knowledge and maturity, we reverse the biblical order. We make baptism into a graduation ceremony, a recognition of growth, instead of the very act that grants the grace needed for growth. This results in confusion, as young believers who long for forgiveness and life in Christ are told they must wait, while Scripture declares that baptism is precisely how they begin.

We need not complicate this order, as the truth is simple: if a child believes in Jesus as Lord, confesses their sin, and desires baptism, there is no scriptural reason to delay. Every reason to baptize is present, while every alleged reason to wait is man-made. The apostolic command still rings with urgency: “Why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). Thus, to delay baptism is to contradict the very theology we confess. To require perfect knowledge is to demand what no human being possesses. To question the validity of a child’s baptism is to cast doubt upon the faith and assurance of countless Christians who came to Christ in their youth. But to baptize at the moment of repentance and faith is to honor the pattern of Scripture, to trust the promise of God, and to hand our children the grace that God never meant for us to withhold. Biblical study, theology, and philosophy all agree: grace cannot be earned by comprehension. It is not a prize for intellectual mastery, but a gift freely given at the water’s edge and our Lord and Savior’s extended hand. The child who knows their sin, believes in Christ, and turns to Him should not be kept waiting at the door of grace.

So why wait?