Is Mark 16:16 a proof text against the baptism of infants?

Interpretation 1: Yes.

Summary: 

Yes, Mark 16:16 is a clear text against the baptism of infants.

Arguments in favour of this view:

1. Christ mentions faith as a condition that has to precede baptism.

2. We also find this order: first faith—then baptism, in Acts 2:41; Acts 8:36, Acts 16:31–33; and Acts 19:4–5.

3. In Ephesians 4:5, the apostle Paul also mentions faith first, and then baptism as something that binds Christians together by the Spirit.

4. John the Baptist was already calling the Israelites to believe his message that God’s kingdom was at hand, and therefore to repent. After this he baptized those who answered that call.

Arguments against this view:

1. Mark 16:16 cannot be read in isolation from the previous verse (Mark 16:15). In it, Christ sends his disciples out to preach the gospel all over the world. This proclamation was naturally directed primarily to those who could understand the message (and not infants). And to them applied what we read in Mark 16:16: whoever comes to faith may also be baptized. This text makes no pronouncement about whether or not infants should also be baptized.

2. The texts mentioned from Acts also refer to youth or adults who are being addressed and, when they accept the gospel in faith, are also baptized. These texts, too, make no declaration about whether or not infants are baptized.

3. In Ephesians 4:5 baptism is not mentioned after faith as a seal or a certificate to that faith, but as a sign and guarantee of God’s promises to strengthen faith. Baptism, therefore, does indeed belong to God’s call to faith. But this does not mean that this guarantee and sign cannot also be given in advance to the children of believers as an aid in their learning to believe God’s covenant promises.

4. God also included the little children each time he called his people together in the time of the Old Testament (see Deuteronomy 31:12; Ezra 10:1; Nehemiah 8:3–4; Joel 2:16). Therefore, it is plausible that when all the people of Jerusalem, Judea, and all the land around the Jordan came to John (and wouldn’t that have included whole families as well?) baptized not only adults, but also their children. After all, it would be a deviation from God’s policy of centuries if he had suddenly excluded children from John the Baptist onward. Nor would it fit with Jesus’ reaction to children (Mark 10:13–16). So there was no specific need to mention in the Bible that children could also be baptized. If children were not to be baptized, that should definitely have been mentioned.

5. In Acts we read several times that people who had come to faith were baptized with all their house(holds) (Acts 11:14; Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33; Acts 18:8). In 1 Corinthians 1:16 Paul writes that he baptized the household of Stephanas. That expression has a background in Old Testament Hebrew. A person’s household there refers to everyone under his responsibility—young and old, wives, children, and staff. Abraham was instructed to circumcise all his house (Genesis 17:13, Genesis 17:23, and Genesis 17:27; see also Genesis 7:1; Genesis 45:11; Deuteronomy 14:26; Deuteronomy 15:20; Judges 18:25; 1 Samuel 25:6).

Against this background it may be concluded that when New Testament texts tell us that a person was baptized with all his house, this included all his children and even his slaves, as in the case of the Roman officer Cornelius (Acts 10:24).

Interpretation 2: No.

Summary:

No, Mark 16:16 is not a clear text against the baptism of infants.

Arguments in favour of this view:

All the arguments against Interpretation 1.