02/05/2026

 

Samuel Clifford

 

Introduction

 

Paedobaptism is the belief that infant children of believers should be baptized. Paedo comes from the Greek word “paîs” meaning child. In this article series, infant baptism will be evaluated according to the scriptures. It is often that some will debate using tradition and church history, but the only authority that is infallible is the scriptures. 

 

The Absence of a Biblical Command to Baptize Infants

 

Being in a group chat with paedobaptists, there is one thing that I and others have noticed. It is that there is a clear absence of a biblical command to baptize infants. The scriptures give no command for New Testament believers to baptize their children, and yet, according to the paedobaptist, if it does teach believers to baptize their infants then Christians who don’t baptize their infants would be sinning. 

 

Paedobaptist John Sartelle argues, “What would you have said to God if you had been Abraham? ‘Lord I don’t think I ought to circumcise Isaac. We had better wait until he professes his own faith before we apply the sign of salvation to him.” (Sartelle 1985: 26.) 

 

The obvious problem here is that unlike God's command for Abraham to baptize his children, there is no command for Christians to baptize their children. It would seem that if infant baptism was a requirement or priority practice for Christians to uphold that a command would be there. Yet, there is no such command throughout the Bible. This leads paedobaptists to look for indications of infant baptism in other passages which is fine to do. However, the arguments fthe give are almost always based on assumptions as will be shown.

 

There is an Absence of Biblical Examples of Infant Baptism

 

Not only is there an absence of a command from God to baptize infants but there is also a lack of examples that can be given. If infant baptism is a biblical tradition given by God, you would expect an example of it in the scriptures. However, what you actually find every time is the baptism of believers after a profession of faith:

 

1. The 3,000 at Pentecost (Acts 2:41)

 

2. The men and women of Samaria (Acts 8:12)

 

3. Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8:13)

 

4. The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:36-39)

 

5. The many Corinthians (Acts 18:8)

 

6. John’s Disciples (Acts 19:5)

 

7. Paul the Apostle (Acts 22:16)

 

The pattern of baptism in Acts is that it follows faith. Paedobaptists will often argue that because the Church was new and conversion was happening and that is why you find faith preceding baptism in these verses, not because it is required. The specifics and requirements of baptism will be discussed later. However, the point of this is to show that in every biblical example of baptism faith precedes baptism and that there is no biblical example of infants being baptized. If infants were to be baptized according to the scriptures we would expect an example to be shown somewhere in the New Testament.

 

Critiquing the Household Argument

 

Knowing that there are no specific examples of infants being baptized, paedobaptists often turn to examples of households being baptized in the Bible and state it shows infant baptism as everyone in the household was baptized. Firstly, I would like to go over two major assumptions in the household argument. After that, I will go into more detail about the households themselves.

 

Assumption 1: Infants were present in the household. 

 

Paedobaptists must assume that infants were present in the household for their argument to work. The scriptures give no indication that infants were present and therefore it must be assumed that infants were a part of the household for infant baptism to be scriptural from the verses. Some paedobaptists may respond, “yea but you have to assume infants were not a part of the household,” which is true. However, if I have to assume infants are not present and they have to assume infants are present then perhaps it is better not to use the household argument at all as it is incapable of providing scriptural authority to infant baptism.

 

Assumption 2: Infants were not exempt in baptism.

 

Let us assume that yes, infants were present in the households baptized in Acts. The second assumption for the paedobaptists would be that the infants weren’t exempt. There are two major examples in the Bible where the term “household” doesn’t mean everyone in the household without exception:

 

1. In Titus 1:11, Paul refers to false teachers ‘upsetting whole families’ (literally: whole households). If infants were present in these households, it is unlikely that Paul meant that even these babies were being deceived.

 

“who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of dishonest gain.” (Titus 1:11 NASB)

 

In Titus 1:11, Paul warns that false teachers are “upsetting whole households.” Even if infants were present in these households, it is unreasonable to conclude that Paul meant every member, including babies, was being doctrinally deceived. Infants cannot comprehend teaching, evaluate doctrine, or be “upset” in the sense Paul intends, which involves being led astray by false ideas. Paul’s concern is clearly directed toward those capable of understanding and responding to teaching, adults and older children within the household structure. The phrase “whole households” is therefore a collective expression, not a literal enumeration of every individual. Titus therefore shows that exemptions can be understood within households depending on the context. If faith precedes baptism then it would make sense for infants to be exempt as they cannot have faith.

 

2. When reading 1 Samuel 1:21, the text says that Elkanah went up “with all his household” to offer the yearly sacrifice. Taken at face value, you might assume this includes Hannah and the child Samuel, since they were part of his household.

 

But the very next verse clarifies the situation. 1 Samuel 1:22 explains that Hannah did not go up because she intended to wait until Samuel was weaned before bringing him to appear before the Lord.

 

This contrast shows that the biblical term “house” or “household” does not always refer to every individual member without exception. Even though Hannah and Samuel belonged to Elkanah’s household, they were not included in the group described as going up “with all his household.” In summary, both Titus and 1 Samuel provide evidence that exemptions of individuals can be shown of households in scripture. Now, let us examine the households on a more individual level.

 

The Household of Cornelius

 

In Acts 10, God leads the apostle Peter to the household of Cornelius, a Roman centurion who fears God and receives a vision instructing him to seek Peter. Peter, after receiving his own vision showing that God makes no distinction between people, preaches the gospel to Cornelius’s household. As they believe, the Holy Spirit comes upon them, demonstrating that God extends salvation to Gentiles as fully as to Jews. That last detail makes it difficult for infants to be a part of this household without exemption. The “Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message” (Acts 10:44). After this they spoke in tongues and exalted God. These details are almost impossible to attribute to infants and therefore the details of this passage show infants are not in view for the audience.

 

The Household of Lydia

 

In Acts 16:14-15 the household of Lydia is baptized. Infants are not specifically mentioned and not many details are given surrounding the baptism. Matt Waymeyer in his book, “A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism” gives multiple reasons, however, of why he believes she was unmarried and childless:

 

1. No husband is mentioned
2. She carried on a vocation of selling purple fragments
3. She traveled hundreds of miles from Thyatira to conduct business in Philippi
4. She felt the freedom to invite Paul and other men to stay in her house.

 

Waymeyer admits he cannot be dogmatic on this. Yet, whether you believe she had children or not, no infant is mentioned.

 

The Household of the Philippian Jailer

 

While Paul and Silas were imprisoned in Philippi they preached the gospel to the jailer who imprisoned them. The jailer believed and his entire household was baptized according to Acts 16:31-34. Paedobaptists attempt to use these verses as proof in infant baptism. Yet, according to verse 34 it states, “he had become a believer in God together with his whole household.” So not only did the philippian jailer believe but also his entire household which would obviously exclude infants.

 

The Household of Crispus

 

“Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household; and many of the Corinthians, as they listened to Paul, were believing and being baptized.” Acts 18:8 NASB

 

This household and many Corinthians is often less used by Paedobaptists as the verse clearly states that the individuals believed and then baptized. This is a glaring weakness for any paedobaptist who tries to use Acts 18:8 for proof of their tradition.

 

The Household of Stephanas

 

In 1 Corinthians 1:16 Paul baptized the household of Stephanas. The individuals being baptized aren’t known and so an assumption would have to be made that infants were included. However, later in 1 Corinthians 16:15 Paul described the household of Stephanas as the “first fruits of Achaia.” They were the first converts in Achaia and “devoted themselves for ministry to the saints.” Therefore, Paul suggests the members of this household believed and were devoted to ministry which would hint at either no infants being present or the exclusion of infants.

 

Conclusion

 

The case for paedobaptism ultimately rests on assumptions rather than explicit biblical teaching. Scripture gives neither a command to baptize infants nor a single clear example of it being practiced by the apostles or early church. Instead, every recorded instance of baptism follows personal faith, a requirement infants cannot meet. The household passages often cited by paedobaptists do not overturn this pattern. As shown, the term “household” in Scripture frequently includes contextual exemptions, and the details surrounding each household baptism in Acts consistently point to conscious belief among those baptized. Where additional information is provided, it explicitly identifies the household members as believers, worshipers, or servants of the Lord, descriptions that exclude infants. The next article for this series will go over the paedobaptist's “circumcision argument.”