The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism

41 min readMar 27, 2020

Christ with the Children — Carl Heinrich Bloch c. 1800s

Dear reader, thank you for entertaining my first attempt at a theological essay. What sparked my interest almost a year ago on this topic was the Protestant Reformation’s early leaders — they were mostly in favor of baptizing babies. The Reformers retained the practice of infant baptism from Rome and gave it biblical underpinnings. My priority with this article is to help us know the Bible and God deeply, because as Christians it’s not enough to say we believe such and such, but to know why we believe. Blind faith is not our thing. It’s a biblical truth that our convictions, whether religious or not, should be held out of choice and not convenience. Having said that, there may be arguments I haven’t considered and am open to correction in what I’ve written. It may even come to pass in the Lord’s ironic sovereignty that I turn credobaptist. As a good Protestant I’m not bound to a tradition but to Scripture, and may what I’ve written further us all to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pt. 3:18).

P.S. if you read footnotes, you can quickly get to them by holding CTRL and pressing F. Then, you can type the footnote, e.g. [2], skip to the footnote and come back up to your original spot.

P.P.S. I’ve included the best summary of this topic at the end, if you don’t have the time/desire to read the whole article. Search [18]

1. Covenant Theology

The concept of covenant originates in God’s eternal habitation. Some theologians have defined the set of biblical data of pre-creation activity within the Godhead as the eternal covenant of redemption (Heb. 13:20b, Eph. 3:11, Rev. 13:8). This was a pact. a formal agreement between the three persons to accomplish the goal of salvation and triune glory. Scripture teaches the Father has always loved and foreknown His elect (Eph. 1:4–6, John 6:37–40). The Son from eternity had volunteered to undergo humiliation and be a ransom for them (Phil. 2:6–7, John 10:15, Rev. 5:9). And the Holy Spirit had taken the role of applying Christ’s redemption and completing the work which the Father began (Eph. 1:13, Phil. 1:6). The one following Jesus is the beneficiary of this covenantal love that will never change, decrease or cease. A love which never began can never end — a thought which ought to bring one to their knees in worship.

The Eternal Covenant is an invisible, pure and eschatological covenant. It’s members are called the elect, or traditionally the invisible church (WCF 25:1). It is invisible because their identity is not known with certainty from our perspective, and is why all professed believers should “be all the more diligent to confirm [their] calling and election” (2 Pt. 1:10). It is pure because only the elect are members of this covenant. It is eschatological because the knowledge of the elect, the true sons and daughters of God, will be revealed and celebrated before all creation when Christ comes again (Rom. 8:19, 29). Until that hoped for Day, the Church should confess: “The secret things belong to Yahweh our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever…” (Deut. 29:29) Because God has not revealed the elect, we are not responsible for the inward state of fellow Church-goers, i.e. “the secret things”. What God holds us accountable for is fruit, i.e. “the things that are revealed”. So barring obvious unrepentant sin, our view should be favorable and optimistic toward other professing Christians. Like the Apostle Paul, we ought to have a “judgment of charity, that the calling of [others] would prove firm and immovable, as being persons in whom [are] the tokens of God’s fatherly benevolence.” (Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Cor. 1:4–9). This will be relevant concerning the basis of baptism, whether it is based upon the inward, subjective state of the individual or their objective participation in the Covenant.

Covenant of Grace & Visible Church

Every other biblical covenant are God’s ancillary means to fulfill His ultimate covenant. First was the Covenant of Works to give the sinless Adam opportunity, like a probationary test, to inherit eternal life for him and his posterity (cf. Hos. 6:7). Second and most important was the Covenant of Grace foreshadowed in Genesis 3:15 wherein Yahweh swears an oath to fulfill the Covenant of Works’ demands by sending the Second Adam to obey where the first Adam failed to. In Jesus’ words, He was to “fulfill all righteousness”, obeying the Law perfectly on our behalf so that we’d be counted righteous in Him (Mt. 3:15, Rom. 5:18). The Covenant of Grace offers the rewards of the Covenant of Works through faith in Jesus Christ.

It is a historical, objective and impure covenant consisting of elect and non-elect, traditionally called the visible church. It is historical because it serves as the visible habitation of the invisible church throughout time. The universal Church in her earthly pilgrimage takes on different forms until the arrival of the Kingdom and is the ordinary means to keeping people saved. The “church” is the gathered people of God and the place where God dwells with His people in a redemptive and covenantal fashion, and makes available the promise of salvation. The people of Israel were the Church because they shared in the essence of Christ’s Bride. They possessed the very things she does today: the belief in the one true God, the Word of God, the law, worship, etc. (Rom. 3:1–2, 9:4, cf. Jer. 31:32)[2].The Covenant of Grace is therefore objective because it can be seen, touched, outlined and numbered. You know who’s part of the Church objectively by looking around, having email lists, and so forth. In this sense whosoever participates in the corporate worship truly participates in the Covenant of Grace, including children. The Old and New Testaments are two sides of the same Covenant of Grace (more on this below). Then and now, the Covenant of Grace is historical, objective and impure, mixed with true and false converts.

The objective Covenant of Grace contains within it those who belong to the Eternal Covenant and those who don’t.

The primary field of disagreement between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians is defining the New Covenant [3]. A credobaptist will argue the New Covenant is pure and only for the elect, unlike the Old Testament (OT) which consisted of both elect and non-elect. If true, then it is argued infants cannot be known to be elect and cannot receive the Covenant sign. With all the love for my Baptist brethren, I genuinely believe the Scripture is abundantly clear the New Covenant is impure and mixed just like the Old.

The Spirit reveals “…not all who are [of] Israel belong to Israel” (Rom. 9:6), meaning the corporate (visible) entity is not the same as the spiritual (invisible) entity. The New Covenant likewise holds the twofold distinction of corporate and spiritual, for there are varying degrees of Spirit-wrought faith (Rom. 12:3) but also pretended faith, insincere and from the flesh. In Jesus’ time and ours, the people of God includes those who outwardly display religiosity but inwardly lack genuine love for God (cf. Isa. 29:13, Phil. 1:15–17). They, like the worthless sons of Eli and Judas Iscariot, sing the songs, quote the Scriptures and even attain the title of pastor.

And yet the writer of Hebrews rightly refers to these Covenant members as being “enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift and have shared in the Holy Spirit…For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.”(Heb 6:4–8, cf. Heb. 2:1–3, Rom.11: 20–21). We know the elect cannot fall away. We also know this isn’t an empty hypothetical scenario. In some way then, unconverted Covenant members can also experience real joys and comforts from the special presence of God. They can “drink the rain” of God’s Word and be encouraged, perform mighty works and boldly cry “Lord, Lord”. But, if sinful tendencies are never really forsaken and Christ is not truly cherished, they will hear the dreaded words “I never knew you, depart from me you workers of lawlessness” (Mt. 7:21–23, cf. Mk. 4:17). Like Moses, Christ not only mediates the Covenant blessings but also the curses. New Covenant members are able to break fidelity with Him. Those who remain faithful to the end receive Him as Savior, while those who continue in sin receive Him as Judge (2 Cor. 5:10, cf. Rev 2:6–7).

The Continuity of the Covenants

One way to visualize the major covenants.

The singular Covenant of Grace, of which Christ is the center, is what holds the Old and New Testaments together. What we must ask is how can the disconnect of the Old and New testaments be reconciled? (2 Cor 3:6–9; Gal 4:24–26; Heb 7:22, 9:15–20). In what sense is the New Covenant “new” and “better”? There is not enough room to address each verse cited, but the Reformed tradition has proposed the contrast in the two covenants is that of form and appearance, not substance and essence (WCF 7:6). The two covenants are essentially the same Covenant of Grace, but the dispensation or mode of administration changes — initially through Moses and the theocratic nation of Israel, and consummately through the revelation of Jesus Christ and worldwide Church.

Going forward then, two truths must be held in tension:

1. The Old Covenant was inferior because it was unfulfilled.
2. The Old Covenant was sufficient and efficacious through Christ to save, just like the New Covenant.

Point #1 is the main thrust of the book of Hebrews. The writer says “the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities” (Heb. 10:1). Hebrews is filled with analogies comparing and contrasting Jesus with the Old Covenant. Typology is the study of OT prophetic imagery, for example Paul says Adam was “a type of Him who was to come”. (Rom. 5:14). Biblical types include Moses (Heb. 3:1–6), the priesthood (7:23–28), the Tabernacle (9:9, 21-24), and the sacrifices (10:1–14). The Old Covenant was the secondhand picture of God’s salvation plan. It was a temporary reflection of what and who would really save. As Paul argues: “For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory” (2 Cor. 3:11). Like the Moon’s silver gleam does not originate from itself but only derived from the Sun, the Old Covenant’s glory is derived from the New Covenant. Without the Light of Christ there would be no light at all. “What is permanent” is “enacted on better promises” (Heb. 8:6) In this case, “better” more accurately implies “clearer”, not “newer”. Because God has spoken to us through His Son, the fullness of revelation has been poured out like never before. The mystery of divine reconciliation has been accomplished at the Cross, the “wall of hostility” has been abolished and the creation of “one new man” has radically begun. Indeed His “eternal purpose” has now been realized in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Eph. 2:14–16, 3:7–11) Greater revelation means greater salvation, and this is why the New Covenant is far better than the Old.

2. The Old Covenant was sufficient and efficacious through Christ to save, just like the New Covenant.

So how exactly did salvation work in the OT? Was the whole thing completely devoid of redemptive grace? No, for Scripture implies saving grace was conveyed through OT types by virtue of linking the worshipper to Christ’s actual redemption, i.e. the Gospel. As the premature expressions of God’s heavenly provision, they truly conferred and maintained fellowship between God and man. The Westminster Confession says the Old Covenant was “for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah.” (WCF 7:5)

Two explicit examples are noteworthy:

a. The Apostle Paul used Old Covenant typological, retroactive grace as an example to warn New Covenant Corinthians against lust and idolatry: “For I don’t want you to be unaware brothers, that our fathers… ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock… and the Rock was Christ.”(1 Cor. 10:1–4, cf. Heb 6:7–8) The inferior mediatory blessings of Moses, in the manna from heaven and water from the desert rock, served as symbols of the superior mediatory blessings of Christ (cf. Jn. 6:32–35). Those in the OT church who humbly believed God through the Passover, sacrifices, priestly mediation, etc. truly received Christ. Those who rejected the symbols, sought them with unbelieving hearts or as bargaining chips for God’s favor were overthrown and rejected (1 Cor. 10:5–14, cf. Jn. 6:22–27, Hos. 6:6, Heb. 11:6).

b. The Apostle also ties the Gospel explicitly to an Old Covenant promise, for in Galatians 3:8 he says the Gospel was “preached” to Abraham through the words, “In you shall all the nations be blessed”. If there is only one Gospel (Gal. 1:6–9), then this Word of the coming Offspring was the Gospel in seed form. The moment Abraham believed the promise, he believed the Gospel and was blessed (Gal. 3:9). Abraham had knowledge of the coming Christ appropriate for his time (John 8:56). By God’s grace, his understanding grew as “he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10, cf. Rom. 4:20–22). The OT saints from Adam to Malachi could truly possess the kingdom of God as their destiny through the promises and types, for the Scripture says many “died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.” (Heb. 11:13, cf. WCF 8:6)

The Old Covenant was inferior but nonetheless sufficient to save through the work of Jesus. It is therefore essentially the same as the New Covenant. If all this were not true, then John Calvin poignantly states those who hold the contrary view “depict the Jews as a carnal and brutish people who had no other covenant with God than one concerning only this temporal life… offering merely present and corruptible benefits. If such was the case, what remains to us other than to regard this nation as a herd of swine whom our Lord wished to nourish in their sty for a while in order to let them perish eternally?” (Institutes 4.16.10)

Next, we will examine how this fundamental unity pervades the Covenant’s two signs, circumcision and baptism.

2. Circumcision: Corporate Consecration in Covenant

Filippino Lippi — Abraham the Patriarch with the Circumcision Knife c. 1502

Historical covenants were always one way, unilateral arrangements. In the days of old, a conquering suzerain king initiated a covenant with a subdued vassal king as the means to a newfound relationship. Because of the drastic difference in status and authority, the superpower condescended to establish communion through stipulations, promises for blessing and curse, and usually a ceremony slaying an animal [6]. This is the Near-Eastern backdrop of the “covenant of circumcision” made with Abraham (Acts 7:8a).

“I am Yahweh who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess…When Abram was ninety-nine years old Yahweh appeared [again] and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless… No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham… I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you… You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you… Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” (Gen. 15:7, 17:1–14)

We learn five principles of covenant operations from Genesis 17:

Consecration unto God
Obligations
Promise of blessing
Corporate consecration
Threat of curse

First, the Covenant and its sign was consecration unto God. The Covenant sign was to indicate membership within the objective, visible Covenant of Grace and consecration unto Yahweh. This is what is meant by “I will establish my covenant with you… and [circumcision] shall be a sign of the covenant”. A common misconception is that circumcision was primarily an ethnic identifier. This cannot be true because there was no such thing as a “Jew” before Abraham. He was a pagan Chaldean (Jos. 24:2–3) until he entered into covenant bond with Yahweh. His DNA never changed, but his identity did — and circumcision signified it. What then does it mean to be a Jew? It’s inherently covenantal. A Jew is in objective relationship with Yahweh through covenant (cf. Amos 3:2). (Only as a byproduct of heredity did their ethnic identity overlap with their religious one.) This new religious identity was also to be “established” and signified with Abraham’s household. The sign was tied to the individual’s objective participation in the Covenant life, not to their subjective spiritual state. Baby boys (and girls, by association) were in objective covenant relationship.

Second, the covenant sign involved covenant obligations. Abraham was charged to “Walk before Me” and “Be blameless” (17:1), implying the necessity of sincere faithfulness to the Covenant Lord. Abraham was conscripted into His service, duty bound to “walk in the footsteps of the faith” in order to inherit the promise of innumerable children and global blessedness (Rom. 4:12). Israel likewise was repeatedly told in one way or another, “If you obey the commandments of Yahweh your God…then you shall live and multiply…But if your heart turns away…I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish….I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse...” ( Deut. 30:16–19) The possession of the earthly kingdom for them and their children was dependent upon their obedience. [7]

This obedience principle was also a generational law involving Covenant children. Moses repeatedly speaks of the new Israelite generation as if they had been the very ones who initially swore the oath of obedience: “And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them, “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the rules that I speak in your hearing today, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them. Yahweh our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our fathers did Yahweh make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.” (Deut. 5:1–3, cf. 1:6, Haggai 2:3–5) Every individual at the Law’s first giving were dead, except for Moses, Joshua and Caleb. Yet it was the new generation who was required to continue in the covenant of their fathers. The Pulpit commentary notes, “[I]t was with the nation as an organic whole that the covenant had been made.” If God found it fitting to oblige Abraham’s children to obey Him using the Covenant sign, why should we expect anything different today?

Third, the covenant sign signified and sealed the blessings of the Gospel. A sign is a visible representations of an invisible reality so that the spiritual truth becomes “sensible” and perceived through a physical metaphor. P. C. Marcel says, “The sacraments visibly represent and amplify the awareness which we have of the spiritual blessings of the covenant of grace, of the cleansing of our sins, of our participation in the life which is in Christ”. Whenever we see a rainbow, we recall the covenant God made with His creation (Gen. 9:12). Circumcision likewise pointed to the removal of “the foreskin of [the] heart” (Deut. 10:16, Jer. 4:4, cf. Ezk. 36:26–27). The Apostolic interpretation confirms the meaning of circumcision as union with Christ and the new birth — the very same as baptism.

“In [Christ] also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Col. 2:11–12) [8]

The believer is said to have undergone the “circumcision of Christ”, meaning he’s been united with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. This is an exact parallel to Romans 6:3–4. [9]
We’ve been circumcised “without hands”, not by man in an external rite but spiritually and by divine Power.
The “putting off the body of flesh” refers to the “old self”, the foreskin of the heart circumcised and cut off by Christ “in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing”(Rom. 6:6, cf. Col. 3:9–10).

For the Apostle Paul the concept of being Jewish, i.e. in covenant with Yahweh, is actualized fully in the born-again Christian: “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” (Rom. 2:28–29, cf. Jer. 9:25, Ezk. 44:7, 9) Any Jew in the OT who had the sign but not the thing signified was “merely circumcised” (Rom. 4:12), while true circumcision was (and is) the new creation in Christ by the Spirit (Phil. 3:3, Gal. 6:15). Furthermore, notice how the teaching of Romans 2:28–29 is equally applicable to nominal Christians who rely falsely on their baptism: “For no one is a Christian who is merely one outwardly, nor is baptism outward and physical. But a Christian is one inwardly, and baptism is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit.” To only have the sign but not the thing signified makes one merely baptized, a Christian by name and not a Christian by nature.

Additionally, circumcision was a seal of Christ’s imputed righteousness: “He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.” (Rom. 4:11-12)

What is a seal? In general, it’s a guarantee of authenticity and authority, like a royal stamp. Circumcision was God’s stamp of approval to guarantee and assure the conscience of salvation in the Christ. To illustrate, it’s commonly understood that one can know much about God without knowing God. Pure intellectual assent does not always lead to heart-felt intimacy. But when the Word of God calls you and me to personally repentant, worship and obey, it turns abstract propositions into opportunities for faith, hope, and love to abound. This is Christ’s challenge in first asking “Who do people say that I am?” and then “Who do you say that I am?” (Mt. 16:13–15)

The sacraments have been called the Visible Word for this very reason. The signs are ineffective if seen as mere symbols and detached realities. But, when understood as spiritual realities applied to oneself, as someone specifically called by God to salvation in Christ, they too foster faith, hope and love. The question of “What do the sacraments mean?” should always lead to “What do the sacraments mean for me?”. Circumcision was a seal for the person’s conscience and a shadowy reminder of God’s saving work.

With that said, I ask the reader to carefully ponder this next point. It’s been argued that circumcision was the sign and seal of salvation in Christ. Abraham was first saved and then received the sign. “So far so good”, the credobaptist nods. God then commands Abraham to apply the sign of the second birth and seal of the righteousness of Christ to those who had a week earlier experienced the first birth. “Huh?” Huh is right. If the premises of (1) an impure New Covenant and (2) substantially identical covenant signs are true, it follows that any objection laid against paedobaptism could also be charged against circumcision, since they are one and the same. God knows babies can’t make “a credible profession”. If God counted babies worthy of the sign and seal of salvation in Christ, why should we expect a change? Divine wisdom ought to be appreciated here, and the burden of proof rests on the credobaptist to disprove premise (1) or (2).

Fourth, the covenant and its sign was corporate and multi-generational in form. God wished to be the God of Abraham’s children: “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you” (Gen. 17:7). It is upon the promises of generational salvation the Covenant sign was administered (Gen. 9:8–9, Exo. 20:6, Deut. 7:9, Deut. 30:6, 19b, Isa. 44:3, 54:13, 59:21, Ps. 103:17). This point is so vital because “It affords the assurance, founded on the promises of God, that God will work within the children of the covenant when, where and as it pleases Him.” [10] In contemporary Near-Eastern covenants, the suzerain’s authority extended to the vassal’s household domain indefinitely. The Old Covenant likewise was designed to be hereditary and holistic, offered to each subsequent generation (cf. Heb. 11:9). No child was free to choose their own gods, and that by divine decree. Jewish boys and girls were to pray and confess the Sh’ma, to love Yahweh their God with all their being, and to remember how He saved them from bondage in Egypt (Deut. 6:4–8, Exo. 14:13–16, cf. Deut. 6:20–21). New Covenant parents are indisputably called to the same end, to proclaim “as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.” (Jos. 24:15) This may go without saying, but one of the best church growth strategies is having more children (Ps. 127:4–5).

Fifth, the covenant and its sign signified the curse of divine punishment. It is an uncomfortable thought but one which needs to be acknowledged. God is for God, and everything which occurs serves the purpose of glorifying Him, “even the wicked for the day of trouble”(Prv. 16:4, cf. Rom. 9). Circumcision was vividly a metaphor for judgement most obviously because of the physical damage it inflicted. It implied the Lord is a judge of His people, those who keep covenant and those who willingly break it (Ps. 78:10, 27, Ps. 50:4, 16, Heb. 10:30).

In Genesis 17:14, we read if some man, and by extension his family, doesn’t cut off the foreskin, then he will be cut off from the people. To word it differently, the uncircumcised person was to be circumcised out of the Church and without hope in the promises (Eph. 2:12). They will no longer have the promises and opportunity to respond. So circumcision is good and uncircumcision is bad. But circumcision outwardly and not inwardly is really bad; even more than not being circumcised. To whom much is given, much is required, and a Jew raised in the Covenant would be judged more harshly than a Gentile (Rom. 2:12). Why then was uncircumcision worthy of such hostility from God? What did it signify to Him? Scripture offers two definitions from the term’s usage:

A. To be uncircumcised was synonymous with being a foreigner, unclean and unholy (Gen. 34:14, Exo. 12:48, Isa. 52:1). Newly planted fruit trees in the Promised Land were labeled uncircumcised, due to the fruit’s immaturity and inability to be offered to the Lord (Lev. 19:23–24). (Most translations render the word as “forbidden”). Unlike the fruit trees, Israel was to be seen as holy and set apart from the world unto God as a kingdom of priests (Exo. 19:1–6).

B. To be uncircumcised was to be reprobate. Moses called his lips “uncircumcised”, implying some sort of deficiency in speech (Exo. 6:12, 30). When spoken of the heart and ears, it referred to a deficiency of spirit, a haughty and unrepentant nature that would not submit to the Word of God and thus resist the Holy Spirit (Lev. 26:41, Jer. 6:10, Acts 7:51).

As the result of the previous definitions, the curse portrayed in circumcision was death and judgement, particularly by the sword. (cf. Ezk. 28:10, 31:18, 32:19, 21, 24–30, 32, 44:7, 9, Jer. 9:25–26). Ancient Near-East covenants almost always involved the cutting up of a slain beast to represent the Covenant breaker’s fate. The Israelite’s destiny was to be like his foreskin if he broke the terms of the Covenant. At least three examples of this circumcision-death pattern are found in the Scriptures, but most important would be Christ Himself as he underwent the Covenant curse and was “cut off” (Isa. 53:8)[11]. In the same text of Colossians 2:11–12, Christ’s crucifixion can be read as the archetypal circumcision “without hands”, not as a mere human symbol but the actual divine sword of Justice levied against the Son of God. The “putting off the body of flesh” was not just the removal of the foreskin, but the full fledged covenant curse of death and Hell borne on our behalf (Gal. 3:13–14, cf. 2:20).

The potential curse, like every other covenant principle, was also corporate in form. (cf. Exo. 20:5, Deut. 28:15, 18, Numbers 16:27–40, Joshua 7:24–25)

Conclusion

The Covenant of Grace involved God’s desire to relate to Abraham and his children. Without such a relationship of grace, there would be no salvation. Children therefore were not neutral and undefined bystanders, but were explicitly identified with the Lord’s people and every religious obligation therein, and is why they received the Covenant sign. Infant inclusion was essential to Old Covenant operations. Next, we will examine baptism and the continuity of these Covenant principles.

3. Baptism: Corporate Consecration in Covenant

Verrochio and Leonardo DaVinci — Battesimo di Cristo c. 1475

First, the Covenant and its sign is consecration unto the triune God. The Apostle Paul speaks of the Israelites “baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor 10:2). This is not a description of their physical contact with the elements. Baptizō is used here to denote the ratification of a new covenantal relationship. We see this same sense in the Great Commission, when Jesus commands all disciples to be baptized “into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” The names of God speak of His character (e.g. “I AM that I AM”, the eternal and independent One). When baptized following the revelation of Jesus Christ, we are bonded with His identity as Covenant Lord like the Israelites were bonded to Moses. Baptism is therefore an act of covenant sanctification, a setting apart to declare solidarity with the Church and alienation with the world (Jn. 15:16, Lk. 22:29, Acts 2:40, 1 Cor. 12:13).

Baptism into the name of the God confirms entry and initiation into the Covenant of Grace.This is why adult converts in the book of Acts waited not more than a few hours before being baptized; hardly enough time for the Apostles to have taken them through the rigors of catechesis. They did not receive a badge of maturity determined by some extra-biblical standard. They entered the New Covenant through repentance and faith, as is expected for those who are of reasonable age, and therefore received the sign. A Christian, like a Jew, is a person who is objectively in relationship with Jesus through covenant.

Second, the covenant sign involves covenant obligations. Being baptized confirms Christ’s status as your Master and you His servant: “All authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given to me. Go, therefore…baptizing them…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Mt. 28:18–20, cf. Acts 2:36) Our covenantal identity as sinners turned saints through baptism ought to motivate our hearts to “walk by the Spirit”, have “a good conscience” before God and “seek the things that are above” (Gal. 5:16, 1 Pt. 3:21, Col. 3:1–3). Identity is the wellspring of Christian ethics, and baptism should always motivate behavior. This is why the Apostle Paul can point us to the sacrament’s past application as the impetus for present purity. We are commanded to consciously look back to our baptism as the marker of salvation and the logical necessity of lives fueled by the power of Christ’s resurrection: “For if we have been [baptized] with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his… So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 6:5,11, cf. Col. 2:11–14, 3:1–3) The responsibility is on us to “consider” the reality signified and sealed by our baptism, and by the Spirit walk therein.

Third, the covenant sign signifies and seals the blessings of the Gospel. Baptism portrays union with the death and burial of Christ, wherein our sinful flesh is crucified with Christ and atoned for. Secondly it’s union with His resurrection, a legal righteousness before God for a life reigned by grace and not sin (Rom. 6:4:25, 5:21). In the Old Covenant, the sprinkling with blood and washing of water was key to the worshipper’s purification (Heb. 9:10, 13, Exo. 29:4, 21). The writer of Hebrews encourages Christians to strive for a far superior cleansing: “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” (Heb. 10:22, cf. 9:14, 1 Jn. 1:7) Baptism is the picture of soul cleansing by the blood of Jesus. Paul so gently ends his stern corrections and warnings to the Corinthians with the reminder, “You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:11) The imagery of washing in connection with salvation is not lacking in Scripture, and ought to be a source of comfort for every Christian (cf. Eze. 36:25–27, Eph. 5:26, Titus 3:5, Mark 16:16). Baptism is primarily an image of blessing, unlike circumcision, and displays the grace-abounding superiority of the New Covenant.

This leads to the second function of baptism as a seal of righteousness and guarantee of salvation. Just as the written or preached Word offers grace continually as we recall and meditate on it, baptism as the visible Word does the same. This is how our baptism is to be “improved” (WLC Q167), i.e. appreciated and reflected upon, especially of the “privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby”. For infants and adults, the historical fact of their baptism ingrained through constant reminder and admonition should be a continuous stream of sanctification and assurance. [12] One’s baptism is also the means to their restoration and evangelism. Matthew Henry’s father would often discipline his children and “grab them by their baptism”. An unbeliever baptized in a nominal, functionally atheistic home presents us the opportunity to preach the Gospel through a simple “May I share with you what the Bible says about that?”. Preaching God’s promises in Christ and a call to personal response is how the Sword of the Spirit defeats the forces of darkness and melts the heart of stone.

Fourth, the covenant and its sign signifies the curse of divine punishment. First, the word baptizō is a metaphor of perishing, for it means “immerse” or “overwhelm”. Nothing in the word hints of rescue or emergence. In His discourse with the crowds, Jesus exclaimed “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!” (Lk. 12:50). He says in effect, “I have a judgement ordeal to be overwhelmed with”, pointing ahead to His full, life-encompassing baptism of the Father’s wrath.

Second, water is an element of judgement similar to fire (Isa. 43:2, Ps. 69:14–15, 2 Pt. 3:5–7). The Apostle Peter most explicitly states baptism is the antitypos of water judgement: “ Baptism, which corresponds to [the Flood]…” (1 Pt. 3:21). The Flood was a type of Old Covenant baptism. The Flood, like circumcision and baptism, had dual sanctions for blessing and curse. Noah and his household passed through the waters unto salvation, while the world underwent the curse of death (1 Pt. 3:20, 2 Pt. 2:5). Peter is echoing our Savior’s prophecy on the Mount: “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking… and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (Mt. 24:37–39, cf. 2 Pt. 3:5–7) Jesus’ Second Coming is an event likened to Noah’s Flood, and therefore is also a kind of baptism bringing both blessing and curse. The baptized Church will encounter Christ as Her judge for all things, whether good or bad (2 Cor. 5:10, cf. Mt. 13:24–30, 25:31–46).

The writer to the Hebrews warns New Covenant Christians using an Old Covenant precedence: “Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’” (Heb. 10:28–30) As the Old Covenant carried punishments for infidelity, the New Covenant carries even greater punishment (v.28). The one who was sanctified, set apart as holy through baptism and covenant membership, is indicted with greater culpability for rejecting the Spirit of grace provided to him (v.29). As in the Old Covenant, the Lord Himself remains the judge of His covenant people. (v. 30, Ps. 50:4, 16) [13].

Does covenant infidelity mean God’s purposes were thwarted? No, but rather His purposes were fulfilled. Evangelist Vance Havner rightfully said “Let it never be forgotten that, although we may do nothing about the Word we hear, the Word will do something to us. The same sun melts ice and hardens clay, and the Word of God humbles or hardens the human heart.” (cf. Is. 55:11, Rom. 3:3–4, 2 Thes. 2:11)

Fifth, the covenant and its sign is corporate and multi-generational in form. We will approach the bulls-eye of our discussion through a hypothesis: if the two covenants are essentially one (focused on the person of Christ), and if baptism is essentially the same as circumcision (signifying the work of Christ), then what would be expected if the principle of infant inclusion also carried over?

The NT includes three points of confirmation in:

The identity of children.
The promise to children.
Christ’s disposition to children

1. If infants were to be baptized, we’d expect them to be identified with the people of God. Paul uses the adjective hagios to describe the children of believers, the same word used of Christians when they are called saints, i.e. set apart ones (1 Cor. 7:14). In Ephesians, Paul addresses “the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus”. His audience is later specified as husbands and wives, children and parents, masters and slaves in chapters 5–6. Children are then called to obey “in the Lord, for this is right”(Eph. 6:1). Those who are not Covenant members are neither saints nor called to obey “in the Lord”. Paul sees children as objectively Christians, regardless of their uncertain spiritual state, and so instructs them to obey with a covenantal obedience. Parents, like the Old Covenant, are to provide an education “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4), teaching them to pray, love and obey God. Should not all saints being trained in Jesus be baptized?

2. If infants were to be baptized, they would be extended the promise of salvation. When Christ becomes our Covenant Lord through baptism, He exercises ownership over everything: vocation, hobbies, marriage and children. In the Old Covenant, circumcision was how Yahweh declared He will be the God of Abraham’s children, and they will be His people. It was the promise which grounded the Covenant’s hereditary nature. In the New, children remain Covenant members because the original promise to Abraham is realized to include Jew and Gentile: “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. 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.’” (Acts 2:39 cf. Gen. 12:3, Rev. 5:9). What is the promise Peter is referring to? It’s the gift of the Holy Spirit who is reserved for the elect, including children.[14]

3. If infants were to be baptized, we’d expect them to be within the scope of our Savior’s Kingdom campaign: And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them. (Mk. 10:13–16 cf. Matt. 19:13–15, Lk. 18:15–17)

Calvin calls this passage “a shield against the Anabaptists”. Parents were approaching the Lord Jesus bringing their paidion, a word which can refer to infants, toddlers or half-grown boys and girls. These kids were prospherō to Him, a verb used for the paralytic, demon-possessed and ill who had no ability to bring themselves. He also “took them in his arms”, as Simeon did to the baby Jesus (Lk. 2:28) and so we conclude these were small toddlers and babies. The disciples didn’t appreciate what was happening. They had a misconceived and worldly notion of children, perhaps resembling contemporary culture more than the Word of God. We too might fall into this trap and unconsciously inject Western individualism into our concept of Covenant.

Jesus’ reaction is striking. Why was the rejection of infants from Kingdom mission so displeasing to the Covenant Lord? The reason is because “to such belong the Kingdom of God”. The faithful Jewish parents bringing their children had rightly understood the nature of Yahweh’s covenant dealings better than the disciples. Jesus affirms an open-door policy on children, because it is they who are prime candidates to be saved by grace. [15] Lastly, acting as High Priest, “[Christ] blessed them, laying his hands on them”. We know Jesus does not pray for everyone, but for those given Him by the Father (Jn. 17:9). His blessings and prayers therefore “were not idly wasted in air”, and I believe is the live demonstration of the Acts 2:39 promise in which He called these children.

There is biblical precedence for this! For one, David spoke as being taken by God “from the womb” and made to trust Him “from my mother’s breast” (Ps. 22:9–10, cf. 71:6). The entirety of Psalm 22 is highly prophetic of Jesus’ life and also indicative of His Spirit endowment from infancy. (cf. Isa. 49:1, Mt. 1:20). John the Baptist was filled with the promised Spirit during Elizabeth’s pregnancy and responded to the Lord’s presence (Lk. 1:15, 1:41–44). This last point is highly relevant and deserves elaboration. Some claim baptism does nothing for the child who lacks cognitive understanding and awareness. Is the Spirit limited by one’s cognitive abilities? I would hope not, since further complications arise if one should consider the state of the mentally ill. John leaping for joy in the womb describes the scientific reality of babies responding to the Spirit’s stimuli and brings the objection to naught. Everything from music, touch, foods, and emotions in the home affect infants, and this includes the environment of spiritual affirmation in which they participate before, during and after baptism.

Because of Christ’s physical presence, an infant like John rejoiced in faith. Do we believe Christ is present in our homes and churches? Do we believe we enter the city of the living God with innumerable angels when gathering for worship? Of course we do. In fact, we have more of God than the Israelites did. If so, why can’t our children experience Him truly from their earliest years? Why don’t we expect it? Faith is not an assent to doctrine, but trust in a person, and can be manifest at any age and mental state. [16] Thus, if children are holy saints, heirs of the promised Spirit and acknowledged by our Lord as exemplary Kingdom members, then to withhold the Covenant sign is “to drive far from the fold of Christ those whom he cherishes in his bosom, and to shut the door, and exclude as strangers those whom he does not wish to be forbidden to come to him”. [17]

Conclusion

If our kids are taught to love Christ, honor God’s name and join in prayer, it’s reasonable to say we’re behaving with optimism towards them and treating them as little Christians. So then why don’t these Christians get baptized? I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where baptism is prescribed as a confessional sign (it’s only described that way in Acts, which is not a theology manual). Either we treat Children as unbelievers consistently, or we treat them as believers consistently. There is no middle option. Ultimately though, whether we practice dry baptisms, A.K.A. baby dedications, or wet dedications, A.K.A. baby baptism, (depending on how you see it), we are unified in believing children are a gift from God and to be received in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Too-Long-Didn’t-Read [18]

“The seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before . . . That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized”. — The Directory for the Public Worship of God prepared by the Westminster Assembly

Footnotes Section 1

[1] As Abraham received a promise by God (Gen. 12), he also participated in a mysterious ceremony confirming the covenant (Gen. 14) and accepted the terms of agreement through the circumcision pledge of allegiance (Gen. 17). Here is an example an oath-rite ceremony from a treaty of Ashurnirari V and Mati’ilu dated around the 8th century BC:

“This ram is not brought from his herd for sacrifice… It is to make the treaty of Ashurnirari, King of Assyria, with Mati’ilu that he is brought out. If Mati’ilu [sins] against the treaty sworn by the gods, just as this ram is brought here from his herd and to his herd will not return… so may Mati’ilu with his sons, [his nobles,] the people of his land [be brought] far from his land and to his land not return [to stand] at the head of his land.
This head is not the head of a ram; it is the head of Mati’ilu, the head of his sons, his nobles, the people of his land. If those named [sin] against this treaty, as the head of this ram is cut off, his leg put in his mouth… so may the head of those named be cut off…”
translation from D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, Rome, 1936, p. 195

[2] Additionally both groups sing hymns and have preachers and liturgy. The word for church in the Greek is ekklesia, meaning “assembly” in regards to the religious community of God (Acts 7:38). The Hebrew word qahal refers a majority of the time to “the congregation of Yahweh” (cf. Deut. 23:1–3), and in the Greek OT (known as the Septuagint) qahal is translated ekklesia, thus showing a linguistic identity between the two groups. Even the author of Hebrews considers the OT group to be the “house of God” where Moses was a servant. In the NT, we discover the prominent Son of the same house to be Jesus. (Heb. 3:5–6) One distinction they had was the conflation of church and state. Their religious identity as the covenant people of Yahweh was identical with their national identity as the Israel. This means those born Jews or converted later like Abraham were expected to abide by the civil and ceremonial laws of the nation.

[3] Reformed Baptists like Dr. James White do not believe the New Covenant harbors the unsaved. Their reason for thinking this comes from Hebrews 8:6–13, where the writer quotes Jeremiah to argue for the inauguration of a New Covenant. Jeremiah speaks of a day when all the New Covenant members have no need to be taught “know the Lord, for they will all know me”. This prophecy is over-literally interpreted by Reformed baptists. The goal of the writer is to move the eyes of the church off of the shadows and onto Jesus. It was not to give a literal description of the present state of affairs. If the literal interpretation was applied consistently to all of Jeremiah’s prophecy, it would be nonsensical. It would mean the New Covenant is made with the literal house of Judah and Israel (which it’s not) (v.8), whose fathers did not continue in the covenant nor had the Law written on their hearts and minds (the remnant did) (v.9–10) and finally did not have forgiveness of sins until the New Covenant (they did) (v. 12). If a dry, literal approach does not do justice to the Bible’s teaching as a whole, another approach must be taken. Meredith Kline writes “the theologian of today ought not impose on himself the visionary limitations of an Old Testament prophet. By virtue of the fuller revelation he enjoys, he is able to distinguish these two distinct stages in the history of the New Covenant and to observe plainly that the imperfection of the covenant people and program has continued on from the Old Covenant”(p.133–134 For You and Your Children). It is true the New Covenant enjoys a greater degree of revelation and thus Covenant membership, with Jew and Gentile. Because “grace and truth” came with Christ in an unprecedented way, there is a greater degree of perseverance and heart transformation that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against”. Jeremiah speaks in true, yet not immediate terms. The New Covenant’s glorious future is when Christ consummates his Kingdom and vanquishes sin off the face of the earth. But prior to the coming of the Lord, the worldwide Church inhabits a sinful land in the midst of sinful people and cannot hope to be 100% pure.

[4] Types directly point to Christ, who identified Himself as the focus of all the OT (Luke 24:44–47, John 5:37–47). One author provides useful insight to the inferiority-sufficiency dynamic of the two testaments, saying “The Old Testament gives us types that foreshadow the New Testament fulfillment [i.e., the antitype]. A type is a form of analogy that is distinctive to the Bible. Like all analogies, a type combines identity and difference. David and Christ were both given kingly power and rule. In spite of the vast differences between David’s royalty and Christ’s, there are points of formal identity that make the comparison meaningful.” [Edmund Clowney, The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament]

[5] The book of Galatians is one example of Paul battling the faulty theology of legalistic Judaizers. Through OT re-examination, he first denies what it is not (Gal. 3:1–14) and then affirms what it is: “The law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.” (Gal. 3:17) He’s saying the promise of God in the coming Christ has always been the means of salvation, and the Law did not change it . It is no wonder then why Habbakkuk 2:4 is quoted three times in the NT, which says “the righteous shall live by his faith” (cf. Rom. 1:17, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38). If this was the only way salvation has been imparted, “Why then the law?”. Paul explains, “It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made…” (Gal. 3:19, cf. Rom 5:20). The Law served an intermediary role to serve God’s purposes in salvation and in judgement. For those destined to perish, it was to increase their culpability and to curb their sinfulness. For those destined to salvation, the Law was an instructor to reveal sinfulness before a Holy God and the need for a Savior “in order that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24). “We” in verse 24 is referring to Jews. They were to be justified by faith just like Abraham and the follower of Jesus today (Rom. 4:13–25). This continuation/discontinuation of the Covenant of Works has been a highly nuanced discussion in the Reformed tradition, and based upon Scripture and the majority view of the Westminster divines, it is confessed ,“There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.” (WCF 7:6, cf. 7:1–5)

Footnotes Section 2

[6] For a helpful summary of this concept in Scripture, see: https://www.fivesolas.com/suzerain.htm

[7] Some think because of the texts referenced above, that the Mosaic Covenant was substantially a republication of the Covenant of Works, similar to pre-Fall Eden, whereby eternal life was to be merited by Israel just as it was to be merited by Adam. This substantial republication view is incompatible with Scripture for many reasons, but I will posit two key errors which are elaborated in great detail in the OPC Report.

“Flawless obedience was the condition of Adam’s continuance in the Garden; but Israel’s tenure in Canaan was contingent on the maintenance of a measure of religious loyalty which needed not to be comprehensive of all Israel nor to be perfect even in those who were the true Israel.” — Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963)

[8] There are two grammatical senses in which “circumcision of Christ” can be understood. The first is where the believer is the object of circumcision described, and “of Christ” is an adjective describing Christ as the active agent circumcising the believer. The sentence can be reduced to “You were circumcised by Christ”. The second sense is where Jesus is the object of the circumcision described, and “circumcision of Christ” is a reaffirming clause. It could be read as “You were circumcised in Christ’s circumcision.” The circumcision either happens to us and Christ enacts it, or it happens to Christ and we partake in it. I will utilize both these interpretations because both have their basis in the Scriptures. Famous commentator F. F. Bruce combines them in his exegesis (E. K. Simpson and F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians, Grand Rapids, 1957, p. 235]

[9] Meredith Kline expertly says, “Paul understood both of these rituals as signs made with hands, signifying union with Christ in his representative judgment ordeal. He also interpreted both as signs of the corresponding spiritual death and resurrection of believers. Especially remarkable is the ease with which Paul in Col. 2:11 f. combines circumcision with baptism as complementary signs of the death-burial-resurrection pattern, whereas elsewhere (Rom. 6:3 ff.) baptism by itself serves as sign of the entire complex.”

[10] Pierre Ch. Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism p. 110

[11] First, when Abraham witnessed the flaming torch and smoking pot pass through the slaughtered beasts, it was Yahweh giving a mystical sign of “self-malediction”, an oath of curse upon Himself if He were ever unfaithful (Gen. 15:7–21). A strange reversal of the terms occurred there, for it was a prophecy of our Savior. Second, when Moses was preparing to witness to Pharaoh for the salvation of Yahweh’s covenant son Israel, he failed to consecrate his very own son and broke the covenant made to his father Abraham. If Zipporah had not atoned for Moses through substituting her son’s foreskin, he would have been cut off from his destiny of leading Israel (Exo. 4:22–26). Fun fact, the Western idiom “cut a deal” comes from the Hebrew idiom “karat bĕriyth” meaning “to cut a covenant”.

Footnotes Section 3

[12] Baptism is so interconnected with salvation we often find it hard to read (near impossible to say) phrases the Bible has no problem with, like “Repent and be baptized… for the forgiveness of sins”, “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins…” and “Baptism now saves you…”(Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pt. 3:21, Jn. 3:5).

It’s important to note that the sacraments carry in themselves no special or unique grace. The Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches teach a false doctrine known as baptismal regeneration, attributing to baptism a sort of mystical efficacy that cleanses the soul, functioning as God’s ordained way of “finalizing” salvation. Because the Word of God teaches that by faith we have eternal life (Jn. 6:29, 35, 40, 47) this doctrine should be rejected. Reformed theology does not deny the presence of true, transformative grace in the sacraments. We deny the dead symbolism of some Evangelical churches and the saving sacramentalism of the Roman Catholic tradition, but affirm that as the preached Word renews our minds and conforms us to Christ, so the visible Word of the sacraments does the same because of the power of the Spirit and Word therein. (cf. WLC 167) The texts above are not indicative of salvation by baptism but rather by the Spirit in baptism. Works in Scripture are rightly the confirmation, proof and completion of our faith (Jam. 2:22). From our perspective Abraham and Rahab and Phinehas were counted righteous by their works, even if faith preceded them. (Jam. 2:20–26, Ps. 106:30–31). In a similar way our baptism is the completion of our faith-response to the Gospel and is a means of grace by which God can truly save. See the link for a fuller explanation, but it suffices here to recognize again the nature of baptism as the starting line of the Christian marathon, where repentance, faith and baptism are meant to go hand-in-hand to equip us (of reasonable age) for the race ahead.

See this for a more fuller explanation: https://calvinistinternational.com/2013/03/14/the-sacraments-do-not-confer-grace/

[13] The problem arises in the use of the word hagiazō, which is used earlier in verse 14 of the one whom Christ has “perfected for all time”. This would be a contradiction if the term “sanctified” was used in the same way in both verses. English translations rightly differentiate the two senses by referring to the hagiazō of verse 14 as a present and ongoing reality, i.e. the inward sanctification of the Spirit, while verse 29 is a past and one-time event, i.e. being set apart unto God in an objective way within the Covenant. This latter usage of hagiazō is legitimate and used of our disposition to God’s name, the religious identity of objects in the Temple and even of Jesus’ status as Messiah coming into the world (Mt. 6:9, 23:17–19, Jn. 17:19). None of these definitions deal with soteriology, the doctrine of salvation. So it is possible for hagiazō to refer to Christ, but the context of the passage makes the simpler referent the apostate who was confirmed and set apart as a saint but turned away from his vows and committed adultery against his God. The reason why some like Dr. James White do not arrive at this conclusion is because they have no category for the objectivity of the Covenant apart from the elect.

[14] This verse does not allude to a hereditary promise as we saw in Genesis 17. Actual salvation is the substance of the promise mentioned here, not the possibility of salvation. But this does not detract from the truth that God wishes to call the elect through natural generation. One must generally pass through the objective, visible covenant to enter the invisible covenant, and birth grants organic entry into the Covenant of Grace. If Christians did not have babies, a large portion of the church and elect throughout history would be none existent.

[15] “Faith in Christ is trust in a person, not merely assent to a system of doctrine. Trust in a person normally includes some knowledge about the person — propositions. But the ability verbally to articulate such knowledge varies with age and verbal skill. College professors express their faith more articulately than the mentally retarded adult or the 5-year-old child. Christ saves us; our verbal or intellectual abilities as such do not” — Vern Poythress, Indifference and Rigorism, p.18 — I highly recommend reading both his essays for further understanding.

“Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy, that he might sanctify his elect in himself at any age, without distinction…If in Christ we have a perfect pattern of all the graces which God bestows on all his children, in this instance we have a proof that the age of infancy is not incapable of receiving sanctification.” (Institutes 16.18)

[16] Some claim Jesus is only using them as metaphorical example of the Christian heart. Was this an object lesson meant to ingrain an indispensable Gospel truth? Yes! Without humility and totally dependent faith we cannot grasp the Cross. But there are two reasons which should caution us to limit the teaching to merely analogy. First, to say the child’s faith is necessary and then to deny a child can exhibit such faith is absurd. Second, even though it is possible for “to such” to mean “of this kind or sort”, the High Priestly blessing which follows affirms a literal understanding.

[17] https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/mark/10.htm