Why I Am Not a Baptist: Paedobaptism and Baptismal Efficacy

Introduction

Simply put, I am not a Baptist because I am a Presbyterian. Presbyterianism offers a more coherent and systematic expression of the Christian Faith that better aligns with Scripture, historical developments in light of Scripture, and theological doctrines derived from Scripture. This short essay will demonstrate my rationale for embracing a Presbyterian identity, particularly focusing on the doctrine of baptism, especially paedobaptism and baptismal efficacy.

Scriptural Rationale

Circumcision and Baptism

In Acts 2:38-39, the Apostle Peter says, “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. 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.”¹ He identifies children as recipients of the promise of the Holy Spirit, just as the promise made to Abraham was for him and his offspring (Gen. 17:7-10). Then, the Prophet Isaiah writes, “For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants” (Isa. 44:3). God, through both of the Old Testament characters, made a connection between the promise—the Holy Spirit and future salvation—and the descendants of whom the promise was made to. Peter does the same thing in Acts on Pentecost, demonstrating that God’s promise to Abraham and through the Prophet Isaiah is still relevant. Furthermore, God tells Abraham to circumcise himself and his offspring, and the Apostle Paul makes a connection between the two signs of circumcision and baptism (Gen. 17:9-14; Col. 2:11-12). Indeed, Baptism is to the New Covenant what circumcision was to the Old Covenant.²

Typology: The Flood and the Ark

Baptism is not only linked to circumcision; it is also typologically tied to Noah’s flood and the Ark. The Apostle Peter’s First Epistle says, “God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:20-21).³ While this section of Scripture has historically been challenging to interpret, two key theological insights emerge from Peter’s typology. First, Peter identifies the waters of the flood as a type of baptism. Second, the sacrament’s efficacy depends not on the external work but on Christ. Therefore, it is proper to view the ark as a type of Christ in terms of efficacy, for it effectively carried Noah’s family through the waters of judgment, just as Christ is the efficient cause of salvation in baptism.⁴ It is also appropriate to view the ark as a type of the church in terms of administration, for just as the ark was the means by which Noah’s family was saved, the church is the means by which baptism is administered. These two conclusions support the covenantal continuity between the Old and New Testaments, and by extension, paedobaptism and baptismal efficacy.

Historical Rationale: Gregory of Nazianzus and John Henry Newman

This typological and efficacious understanding of baptism is nothing new. Gregory of Nazianzus (329-89 AD) provides a beautiful exposition on the symbolism of baptism before speaking of its efficacy:

And since we are made in a double manner (I mean the body and soul), and one of these parts is visible and the other invisible, so our cleansing is also twofold, by water and the spirit. One is received visibly in the body, the other happens at the same time, but invisibly and apart from the body. One is symbolic, the other real and cleansing us in our depths. And it is this which comes to the aid of our first birth, making us new instead of old, and making us like God instead of what we now are, recasting us without using fire, and recreating us without destroying us. For, to put it in a word, the virtue of Baptism is to be understood as a covenant with God leading to a second life.⁵

Essentially, Gregory identifies two elements of baptism: the sign and the spiritual reality. The former is a symbolic cleansing from water, and the latter is an efficacious washing from the Spirit. This quote demonstrates that the church has long viewed baptism as more than a mere symbol, instead identifying it as a salvific, spiritual washing, for there is more to baptism than a mere physical act.

This understanding of baptismal grace carried on through church history, yet its expression varied across traditions. In the nineteenth century, John Henry Newman (1801-1890 AD), an Anglican priest turned Roman Catholic theologian, presented a case for infant baptism, acknowledging the argument from silence:

[I]t is fair and right to acknowledge at once that Scripture does not bid us baptize children. This, however, is no very serious admission; for Scripture does not name any time at all for Baptism, yet it orders us to be baptized at some age or other… I say it is not difficult to see, as the Church has ever been led to see, that God would have us baptize young children, and that to delay Baptism is to delay a great benefit, and is hazarding a child’s salvation.⁶

While I agree with Newman’s former conclusion and I acknowledge that delaying Baptism for covenant offspring is hazardous, I would not agree with the latter conclusion that it is hazardous for their salvation. Such a position is often a distinguishing feature of baptismal regeneration, a form of baptismal efficacy that both Gregory and Newman endorse in which the sacramental unity between the physical sign and spiritual reality is overemphasized.⁷ Instead, the position that best encapsulates the Scriptures and describes my conviction is baptismal efficacy in terms of instrumentality, not regeneration.

Theological Rationale

Baptismal efficacy is coherent with the historic Christian Faith, and when properly understood, is fully compatible with salvation by faith alone in Christ alone, guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit. The Westminster Confession of Faith declares:

The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.⁸

Just as baptismal efficacy neither conveys that the signs themselves are efficacious, it does not convey that everyone who receives the sign will be regenerated.⁹

Conclusion

In conclusion, while I appreciate my Baptist brothers and sisters’ commitment to Baptist distinctives such as believers’ baptism, I find a far more compelling case for Presbyterianism, and by extension paedobaptism and baptismal efficacy, rooted in the Old and New Testaments and historical expressions of the Faith. However, Presbyterians, Baptists, and others of different denominations are all followers of Christ, saved by His grace for us and His propitiatory work on the cross. In the Gospel, we find our unity and peace with each other, and I could not be more thankful for that. Despite our differences, God has made us members of His family.

Bibliography

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 6th ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016.

———, ed. The Christian Theology Reader. 5th ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.

The Westminster Confession of Faith. 1647. Accessed May 4, 2025. https://westminsterstandards.org/westminster-confession-of-faith/.

Footnotes

1. Unless otherwise specified, all Scripture references are to the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016). ↩

2. This continuity is further supported by household baptisms, although it is not explicitly stated if children were included. Nevertheless, the early church’s emphasis on household baptisms may reflect a covenantal framework—one in which children are included by virtue of their parents’ faith. ↩

3. The difficulty of this passage lies not only with the comparison of the flood and baptism, but with angelology, in which Christ proclaims liberty to the spirits in prison (see Logan Lancour, “Who are the ‘Sons of God’ in 6:1-4?,” a paper submitted for the course HT 3203 Scripture and Tradition, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, October 2024). ↩

4. Cyprian of Carthage’s (died 258 AD) phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside the church, there is no salvation”) has historically underscored the church’s instrumentation in salvation, especially in the administration of the sacraments. However, it is crucial to emphasize that Christ is the efficient cause of salvation, and the sacraments themselves are the means of grace. The church is neither the efficient cause nor a means of grace. It is an “ark” only in the sense that it is the context in which the means of grace are administered and the efficient cause of salvation is communicated (see Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 6th ed. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016), 275). ↩

5. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio theologica, XL, 2, 7-8, qtd. in Alister E. McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 5th ed. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017), 452-453. ↩

6. John Henry Newman, Sermon 16, “On Infant Baptism,” in Parochial and Plain Sermons, 8 vols (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1908), vol. 7, pp. 217-215, qtd. in McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 475-476. ↩

7. WCF, XXVII.II. ↩

8. Ibid., XXVII.III. ↩

9. Ibid., XXVIII.V. ↩