Not only are the subjects of baptism (babies or believers) debated, but the significance of baptism is debated as well. Doctrinal divergence runs the gamut from Quakers, who do not believe in physically baptizing followers, to Catholics, who believe in baptismal regeneration.

Among those who hold to baptismal regeneration, there is a variety of opinion. The Church of Christ holds that believers must be baptized to be saved; the Roman Catholic Church holds that baptism con­fers the grace of justification,¹⁰ thus dealing with the problem of original sin; and Lutherans hold that the sacrament of baptism involves a nonverbal communication of the gospel, which newborn babies can choose to accept or reject.

Reformed churches (Presbyterian Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church) hold to baptism as a sign of God’s election and calling. As Israel was separated unto God through circumcision, so children of the covenant are separated unto God through baptism. Those who mature to an age of reason ratify their baptism through a public profession of faith.

Many contemporary evangelical churches, including Baptists, Pentecostals, and Calvary Chapels, opt for a symbolic rather than sacramental¹¹ view of baptism. In their view being submerged in baptism is symbolic of dying to our old lives and being buried. Emerging up out of the waters of baptism is symbolic of being raised with Christ to newness of life (Rom. 6:4-6).

While evangelicals debate secondary concepts surrounding baptism, there are essential teachings regarding baptism that must never be compromised. First, baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it is necessary to obey the command of Christ (Matt. 28:19-20). Furthermore, while baptism does not save us, it does publicly set us apart as those who are part of the community of faith (Rom. 6:5). Finally, a key passage concerning the significance of baptism is found in Romans 6:4-6. Here Paul pointed out that we are buried with Christ “through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” Thus baptism represents our saving union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

As we have seen, those who teach that baptism is necessary for salvation undermine an essential doctrine of the historic Christian faith. The same cannot be said regarding those who baptize babies as well as adult-convert believers. Here we would do well to remember the maxim: “In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity.” While we may debate this issue vigorously, we must never divide over it. Many, including the Roman Catholics, members of many Reformed churches, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, and Eastern Orthodox believers, baptize infants as well as adult converts.

My father, who is a pastor in the Christian Reformed Church, baptizes babies. I, on the other hand, believe baptism should be reserved for those who are old enough to have a biblical understanding of salvation, a conscious commitment to Christ, and a knowledge of the significance of baptism. Neither one of us, however, doubts the other’s salvation. As Bruce Milne puts it, “God has signally blessed and honored the ministry of his servants on both sides of this divide, whether paedobaptists [those who believe in infant baptism] like Luther and Wesley, or Baptists like Spurgeon and Billy Graham. One need but recall the mutual esteem between the Anglican John Newton and the Baptist William Carey to recognize the needlessness of bitter division over this issue.”⁶

Having said this, I would be remiss if I did not point out how deeply divided biblical scholars are on this issue of baptism. Spurgeon said, “As long as you give baptism to an unregenerated child, people will imagine that it must do the child good. They will ask, ‘If it does not do the child any good, why is it baptized?’ The statement that it puts children into the covenant, or renders them members of the visible church, is only a veiled form of the fundamental error of Baptismal Regeneration.”⁷

Reformed theologian R. C. Sproul, on the other hand, argues that those who dispute the validity of infant baptism make [the new covenant less inclusive than the old covenant] with respect to children, despite the absence of any biblical prohibition against infant baptism.”⁸ Sproul is correct in contending that there is no biblical prohibition against infant baptism. He and others equate the New Covenant’s baptism with the Old Covenant’s circumcision. However, there is no clear and compelling teaching or example supporting infant baptism either. On the contrary, where the Bible does speak clearly concerning baptism it emphasizes the faith of those who are baptized.⁹