“The promise is for you and your children” (Acts 2:39).

When Peter proclaimed these words on Pentecost, he was echoing language that would have been instantly recognisable to his Jewish audience—the very words God used when establishing His covenant with Abraham. But has something fundamentally changed between the old and new testaments? Has God’s pattern of including the children of believers in His covenant community been reversed in the New Testament era? Or does it still continue?

 

THE CONTINUITY OF GOD’S ONE COVENANT

The debate over infant baptism ultimately hinges on a deeper question: Is there fundamental continuity or discontinuity in how God relates to the children of believers across testaments?

The Unfolding of One Covenant of Grace

• Covenant established: When God established His covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17:7, He made it clear this wasn’t just a promise to Abraham alone: “I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant.” Paul explicitly identifies this Abrahamic covenant as “the gospel” preached beforehand to Abraham (Galatians 3:8). The covenant has always operated by grace through faith—what has changed over time is not the substance of God’s promise, but how clearly it’s revealed and administered.
• But what about the “new covenant” of Jeremiah 31-32? This isn’t God starting from scratch—it’s the fulfillment and internalisation of what He always intended. Paul makes this continuity explicit in Galatians 3:15-18, arguing that the law couldn’t annul God’s covenant promises to Abraham. If Mosaic law couldn’t set aside this covenant, how could the new covenant in Christ abolish it? Christ fulfils these promises; He doesn’t erase them.
• Throughout the New Testament, we see this continuity affirmed. Paul calls the children of even one believing parent “holy” (1 Corinthians 7:14). Jesus used covenant inclusion language when He welcomed children, declaring “to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:13-16). In Romans 11:16-24, Paul describes Gentile believers as grafted into Israel’s olive tree—the same tree of God’s covenant people, not a completely new one.

The Sign Changes, Not the Substance

The outward sign of covenant membership has changed from circumcision to baptism, but the covenant reality it points to remains the same. Scripture itself anticipated this: Deuteronomy 10:16 and Jeremiah 4:4 called Israel to “circumcise your hearts”—the physical sign always pointed to inner spiritual reality. In Romans 2:28-29, Paul explains that true circumcision “is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit.” Baptism becomes the appropriate sign for the new covenant era because it more clearly pictures the cleansing and regeneration that circumcision only symbolised.

• Hebrews emphasises fulfillment, not abolition. Yes, the old covenant is “obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13) in its temporary forms—the sacrificial system, Levitical priesthood, earthly temple. But the structure of a covenant between God and His people, administered through signs and including believers’ families? That pattern continues, now perfected in Christ.

 

SPECIFIC PARALLELS BETWEEN CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM

Beyond general covenant continuity, Scripture draws explicit connections between these two signs.

Explicit Biblical Connection: The clearest parallel comes in Colossians 2:11-12: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands… by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism.” Paul directly links baptism to circumcision, calling baptism “the circumcision of Christ.” This language strongly suggests baptism has taken on circumcision’s role in the covenant community.

Both signs are one-time, unrepeatable acts marking entrance into the visible covenant community. This initiatory character distinguishes them from repeatable signs like Passover or the Lord’s Supper. Importantly, neither sign automatically conveys salvation—both require genuine faith. Ancient Israel had many circumcised unbelievers. Similarly, Simon Magus was baptised yet his heart remained ‘not right before God’ (Acts 8:13-23)—whether unregenerate or a sinning believer, his baptism clearly didn’t automatically produce the grace it symbolised.

Parallel Functions: Both signs function as initiatory rites marking entrance into God’s covenant people and signifying separation from the world. Both point to the same spiritual realities: cleansing from sin, regeneration, and God’s covenant promises. Genesis 17:10-11 establishes circumcision as “a sign of the covenant”; Acts 2:38 promises baptism is “for the forgiveness of your sins.” Both were instituted by divine command, not human innovation—God commanded circumcision in Genesis 17; Jesus commanded baptism in Matthew 28:19.

The Household Pattern: When God commanded circumcision in Genesis 17:12-13, He explicitly included infants: males were circumcised on the eighth day, long before they could express faith. Abraham circumcised his entire household. This wasn’t Abraham’s idea—it was God’s explicit instruction establishing that covenant signs were applied to believers’ households, including those too young to profess faith.

In the New Testament, this household pattern continues. Acts 16:15 records Lydia “was baptised, and her household as well.” Acts 16:33 describes the Philippian jailer being “baptised at once, he and all his family.” Paul mentions baptising “the household of Stephanas” (1 Corinthians 1:16). The Greek word oikos (household) naturally included children in that culture.

Not once does the New Testament explain or justify any transition from the old covenant pattern. If God had fundamentally changed His approach—excluding covenant children from the covenant sign—wouldn’t this have required clear explanation? Jewish believers would have been shocked. The silence is best understood as continuity: the apostles baptised households, including children, because that’s what covenant signs had always done.

 

ADDRESSING COMMON OBJECTIONS

“There’s No Explicit Command to Baptise Infants” True—but there’s also no explicit command not to, and more importantly, no explanation of why the pattern would have changed. For 2,000 years, children of believers received the covenant sign. If that pattern was being reversed, wouldn’t Scripture clearly state this? The burden of proof lies with those advocating discontinuity. The default position, given household baptisms and covenant continuity throughout Scripture, is that children continued to receive the sign.

“Doesn’t Baptism Require Faith?” This assumes the timing of the sign must match the timing of faith, but circumcision proves otherwise. Romans 4:11-12 makes clear Abraham’s circumcision was “a sign of the righteousness that he had by faith”—yet Israelite boys received this sign on the eighth day, long before exercising faith. The sign pointed to faith that was either already present (in adults) or would need to develop (in children).

Baptism is a covenant sign pointing to realities—cleansing, regeneration, union with Christ—all requiring faith to be truly possessed. For infants, baptism is a sign of God’s covenant promise and a summons to faith, which they must embrace as they mature. Covenant children grow into understanding the significance of their sign, just as young Israelites did.

“But the Old and New Covenants Are Discontinuous” Yes, there are real discontinuities—the new covenant is clearer, more glorious, more international, and more effective. But none of these changes involve excluding the children God previously included. Galatians 3:7-9, 29 are crucial: “It is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham… And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” Believers and their children are Abraham’s offspring, inheritors of covenant promises.

The inclusion of Gentiles demonstrates more inclusivity, not less. The old covenant had ethnic boundaries; the new removes them. Would God remove ethnic barriers while simultaneously erecting age barriers? The trajectory is toward greater inclusion. Nothing in the New Testament hints that God now excludes children He consistently included throughout the Old Testament. First Corinthians 7:14 calls them “holy.” Acts 2:39 declares the promise is “for you and your children.”

 

CONCLUSION

The Reformed paedobaptist position recognises God’s faithful consistency across redemptive history. From Abraham to the apostles, God has worked through families and included believers’ children in His covenant community, marking them with covenant signs.

The real question isn’t whether we can justify baptising covenant children—it’s whether those who exclude them can justify such a dramatic, unexplained reversal of God’s consistent pattern. When Peter proclaimed “the promise is for you and your children,” he was affirming what believers in every age should embrace: God’s covenant faithfulness extends not just to us, but to our children as well.

 

CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM PARALLELS—RELATED FAQs

If baptism replaced circumcision, why do we baptise girls when only boys were circumcised? This actually highlights the expansion of covenant blessings in Christ, not a problem with the parallel. In the old covenant, circumcision marked males as the covenant representatives of their households, but women and girls were still considered covenant members (they participated in Passover, were bound by covenant obligations, etc.). In Christ, Paul declares “there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28)—the new covenant sign is applied equally to both sexes, reflecting the full covenant status women always possessed but now explicitly enjoy. This is covenant expansion, not contradiction.

• What about the “household formula” in Acts—couldn’t these households have been childless? While theoretically possible, this requires assuming every single household baptised in Acts happened to contain no children—a statistical improbability that strains credulity. The Greek word oikos (household) in first-century usage naturally included children, servants, and extended family. More importantly, if the apostles were baptising households in a way that deliberately excluded children—reversing centuries of covenant practice—wouldn’t this revolutionary change have been mentioned or explained? The silence suggests continuity, not careful exclusion.
• Doesn’t baptising infants who can’t believe contradict passages like “believe and be baptised” (Mark 16:16)? These passages establish the normative pattern for adult converts coming to faith—of course they should believe first, then be baptised. But the same logic would mean circumcision contradicted God’s command that Abraham believed first—yet God still commanded infant circumcision. The question isn’t whether faith is necessary for salvation (it absolutely is), but whether the covenant sign can be applied to those who will need to grow into faith, just as it was in the Old Testament.

If baptism of infants is biblical, why did believers’ baptism become the majority view among evangelicals? The Reformation initially maintained infant baptism (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli all practiced it), but the Anabaptist movement emerged partly as a reaction against state-church nominalism where entire populations were baptised without genuine faith. Baptist theology grew from this tradition and flourished especially in America’s revivalist context, which emphasised individual decision and conversion experience. The historical dominance of believers’ baptism in modern evangelicalism reflects recent church history more than exegetical consensus—the majority of Christians globally (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian) have practiced infant baptism throughout church history.

• Don’t passages about baptism emphasise dying and rising with Christ—how can infants experience that? Romans 6 and Colossians 2 describe the spiritual reality that baptism signifies—union with Christ in His death and resurrection. Infants don’t consciously experience this any more than eight-day-old boys consciously experienced the “circumcision of the heart” their physical circumcision symbolised. The sign points to a reality that must be spiritually possessed through faith, whether that faith is present at baptism (adult converts) or develops later (covenant children). The sign’s meaning doesn’t change based on the recipient’s age—it always calls for faith and points to Christ.
• What happens if baptised children grow up and never believe—was their baptism invalid? Their baptism remains a valid administration of God’s covenant sign, but it becomes a sign of judgement rather than blessing if they persist in unbelief—just as circumcision was for unfaithful Israelites. Paul warns in Romans 2:25 that “your circumcision becomes uncircumcision” if you break the law. The sign doesn’t magically produce faith, but it does mark covenant responsibility. Baptised children stand under greater accountability because they’ve been marked as God’s, raised in His church, and given every covenant privilege—making their rejection of Christ all the more serious.

Why do Reformed churches require parents to be believers if baptism is just a sign like circumcision? This actually demonstrates an increase in the stringency and meaningfulness of church membership in the new covenant, not laxity. In ancient Israel, ethnic descent alone qualified you for circumcision—even servants born in Abraham’s household were circumcised. But the New Testament church is constituted by faith, not ethnicity, so only the children of believing parents receive the sign. This reflects the “better promises” of the new covenant (Hebrews 8:6)—a more clearly defined community of faith, while still maintaining God’s gracious pattern of including believers’ children in that community.

 

CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM PARALLELS—OUR RELATED POSTS

• The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism: Calvin’s 7 Key Arguments
• Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: Why the Sacraments Truly Matter
• Not Optional: The Biblical Case for Baptism of New Converts
• Can Baptism Forgive Sins? What Does Acts 2:38 Mean?