While not yet fully committed to infant baptism (I have no children, so maybe that is why), I do think that infant baptism is a wonderful picture of God's reaching out to us first and foremost.

Where would any of us be if God did not come looking for us first.

Matt
Matt | 07.07.04 - 11:28 am | #

Great thoughts, David. This is an issue I intend to dive into and resolve in my mind once and for all. I was raised in the Presbyterian churches and am now in Baptist churches, so I have seen and experienced both sides of the argument. Now I just need to decide which is more Scriptural!
Tim | Homepage | 07.07.04 - 12:18 pm | #

"God, you have promised me eternal life if I believe in the redeeming work of your Son. This baptism is a sign that Your promise extends to my children as well—that if they believe they too will be saved."

Maybe I've totally misunderstood your reasoning in other posts, but I seem to recall you arguing that infant baptism was an application of salvific grace, more than a symbol. Yet here you say that it is a sign and that only if you believe you will be saved, and that the child isn't saved yet. Can you clarify this for me?
Matt | 07.07.04 - 5:39 pm | #

I am struggling with your statement that you believe that Believer's baptism is a short-lived shot of adrenaline compared with your statement that the parents are professing their belief that if their children believe, their children will be saved.

It doesn't seem that infant baptism saves. And what does the parental statement that the parent believs add to the event? And how is that different from a Believer choosing to be baptized?
Steve | 07.07.04 - 6:14 pm | #

"Infant baptism is a celebration of God's promise; it recognizes God's work, not the work of the person being baptized."

My sense is that your argument is that Believer's baptism does nothing because it is God that saves, not Man. But what about the decision we all have to make, the decision to believe? God works in us and leads us to that decision. But if we reject it, he doesn't save us. So why is infant baptism, which is just a celebration by the parents, any different from Believer's baptism, which is in some sense a celebration by the believer?
Steve | 07.07.04 - 6:18 pm | #

One quick comment. You seem to be treating God's promise as conditional for the child. i.e. if they believe then I will adopt them as my children. Usually God's covenant promises are seen as more than this sort of conditional, but rather a claiming of God's promise to be a God to our children. The promise is a promise of salvation, and of grace. Is this what you meant by your indented paragraph?
David | Homepage | 07.07.04 - 11:08 pm | #

All baptisms are believers baptisms and are public testimonies to God's covenant. Neither baptism is any greater or lesser means of grace. The baptismal candidate, regardless of age, is either elect or reprobate. In the Old Testament, infants and adults were both circumcised, the only distinction being when they entered the covenant. The babies of believers are placed in the covenant at birth by their parents through baptism in faith that God will save their children just as He will save them. An individual who is baptised as an adult enters the covenant in faith that God will save him and subsequent generations. The natural progression in this line of thinking is that the one baptised as an adult would have his children baptised at birth, once again in faith of God's promises. The genuineness of the faith of everyone involved (i.e., Christian parent, baptised infant, baptised adult) manifested in the life of the individual. Infant baptism and believer's baptism are compatible with one another and completely orthodox. A believing parent, however, who does not baptise his children, is adopting a "wait and see" attitude concerning God's faithfulness regarding his sons and daughters. Our Creator could never be so fickle.
Hablogger | Homepage | 07.07.04 - 11:45 pm | #

The big difference between the position of paedobaptists and credobaptists on Baptism has to do with whether Baptism is God's work or man's work. In my understanding, Baptism is God's action in which He claims me and my children. For Baptists Baptism is generally considered to be their 'act of obedience'.

Of course, these different views on Baptism lead to two very different views of the Church. The Baptist view leads to a voluntaristic view of the Church. The Church is aligned with human societies such as the sports club, the political party, etc. You can join and you can leave of your own free will.

The Baptist view of the Church poses little challenge to the rulers of this world. The Church does not become an alternative society in the full sense to the societies of this world. The Church does not claim our total allegiance so much as ask us to join up. The view of authority is quite significantly different. Church discipline will be radically reconceived.

Furthermore, a voluntary society is generally seen as a society that one can leave without incurring great loss. Of course, the Church is not such a society as outside of the Church there is no salvation.

By making the Church into a voluntary community Baptists have seriously compromised with the world. They seek to protect man's autonomy by ensuring that Christ can never mark you out as His own in Baptism before you voluntarily give yourself to Him. Of course, even then you can leave the Church and your Baptism becomes meaningless, because it has been made to depend on your own decision.

Paedobaptism, on the other hand, recognizes that Christ's claims over us in Baptism always take priority over the response of allegiance and loving obedience that is demanded of us. Paedobaptists recognize the importance of a faithful Church but they do not fall into the error of equating it with a voluntaristic Church.

Faith cannot be coerced. However, this does not mean that faith is merely some voluntaristic decision. Faithful allegiance to Christ is demanded of all who have been baptized. The Church should not physically coerce us to be Christians and the infant child who is baptized is not coerced. Nevertheless, it is not their free decision that is enshrined in Baptism, but Christ's claims over them and promises to them.
Al | Homepage | 07.08.04 - 4:04 am | #

I take issue with Hablogger's comments. My wife and I are believers who have decided not to baptize our child. My wife was raised Baptist, and I was raised (mostly) Methodist.

There's another dimension here that hasn't been mentioned. I can't remember my own baptism. My wife can. I believe that memory can serve to help ground us when we struggle with sin. I know I was baptized, but the memory is not as visceral as if I remembered the event.
Greg | 07.08.04 - 10:29 am | #

Greg, I know what you are saying. However, among other points I would raise in response is the point that Baptism is not only for the sake of the person baptized. In our individualistic age it is easy to forget this. However, we must remember that through Baptism we are brought into relationship with every other member of the Church. They become responsible for us in a special way. Would you delay the formation of this relationship merely so that we can have a more 'visceral' memory of its formation?

I certainly do not remember when and how my relationships with most of the other members of my family were formed. However, the fact of these relationships has shaped my entire existence. Baptism should be much the same.

Furthermore, it is a blessing and a comfort to Christian parents to know that their child has been baptized and claimed by Christ. Would you rob this from them merely so that the child can one day have a more 'visceral' memory? God's promises do not become more sure just because we have a visceral memory of them. Besides, we should be reminded of our Baptisms every time we witness someone else being baptized.
Al | Homepage | 07.08.04 - 10:49 am | #