Before I start, note that I will be resolutely standing against years of church history just as I have done with the Calvinist doctrine. This would be the time for those of you that have a problem with such defiance to look elsewhere.

There are several stances on infant baptism (paedobaptism). One is that it is the preliminary sacrament that must be accomplished to assure saving grace. In this school of thought the parent professes faith for the child—in outright contrary to Scripture and the Gospel. If anything this series on baptism has shown that baptism by water does nothing for a person and salvation is a work of God alone made available through personal faith (or trust) on the only one who can save.

The Protestant Paedobaptist Position (say that 3 times fast)
Some Protestants view baptism (and therefore paedobaptism) as a symbol of the covenantal community. A paedobaptist would look to the historical Jewish circumcision as a justification for his position. Ever since God made a covenant with Abraham (Gen 17), there was circumcision in Jewish households. The mandate did not save the individual nor did it promise to make the individual a true follower of the Law—it would demarcate that member as part of the covenantal community. A paedobaptist would then probably solidify his position by showing us where Paul speaks of the gentile fulfilling the role of the Jew (Roman 2:27-29). He would also point to Hebrews saying that believers are part of a new and better covenant. In place of circumcision, which Galatians speaks so vehemently against they might say, there is now baptism that must be done by those who believe. But as in the Old Covenant, the whole house would be circumcised then in the New Covenant, the whole house must be baptized. Support for this baptism as being a covenantal sign would be the house baptisms of Acts and Corinthians and the Romans 11 passage of gentiles being grafted into the vine. Lastly, some superficial support would be found in Col 2 circumcision not with hands and the mentioning of baptism.

The paedobaptist would explain that this is a sign that the family is being raised behind the covenantal walls demarcated by the fellowship in Christ of the believers in the house. The children in that house are acknowledged as sanctified by the believers, and although not apparently saved, they have been set-apart for some blessing to be part of that community.

I say not apparently because there are some forms of Protestant paedobaptism that sprinkle the child as a symbol of faith that they are baptizing one of God’s own elect. They readily acknowledge that baptism does not save but they’ll go onto show how the New Covenant is just as conditional as the Old Covenant. That the elect are not shown by their belief but by their proclaimed faith, continued belief and a life of covenant keeping. In the Last Day, they will be confirmed by God as being Elect so when an infant is baptized it is a symbol of the believer’s faith in stating that “yes, this child is Elect” and “I am obeying God to prove my election.”

Why Infant Baptism is Wrong
The picture of baptism has several illustrative aspects (see previous posts). As a memorial illustration it looks back to the recipient of baptism dying in Christ and being risen in Him (Rom 6). To do so to an infant who can’t possibly confess their faith is a (excuse the term) watering down of the symbol. These infants are being made to take part in the symbol of a spiritual reality when there can’t even be evidence of the spiritual reality. If we don’t grab and baptize adults who step through the doors of our churches because we believe that they are elect even though they have never said anything we shouldn’t do so to infants.

As an identifying illustration (1 Peter 3), the baptized stands welcoming persecution in light of his public confession of a good conscience. This person now states openly that they are willing to suffer for good rather than stay quiet and get by all right. By baptizing an infant as part of this identification, we are illustratively making the proclamation that this infant is to welcome persecution for Christ. Now, we wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) go into a Muslim nation and dip them in water, baptizing them and stating that they are identifying with Christ and stand behind Him so why would we do it to an infant?

As a unifying illustration as Paul explains in Ephesians 4, it would be a picture that we have all as believers been baptized in Christ. By baptizing an infant as part of this unifying illustration, we are saying that this person has been regenerated as much as those who are believers as adults. As such we might as well give them bread and wine to remember to the Lord, which is explicitly given for believers to remember Christ. We should then also be allowed to go into our jobs, baptize people to have them to be united with us in the Body of Christ as regenerate sans confession.

If baptism is sign of the parent’s faith that the infant is Elect and part of the covenantal community then there is as much justification for baptizing anyone we speak to as long as we believe that they are really elect. Jeremy actually makes some really good points that allow for baptizing the dead in light of baptizing infants.

Regarding the sign of a covenantal community* the Scriptures speak of the sign of the New Covenant as the wine and the cup, reflecting Christ’s blood shed for us (1 Cor 11). The sign of the New Covenant is never stated as being the baptism by water and in fact, it is never stated as defining a covenantal community as spoken of in the Old Testament. The covenant in the Old Testament was specifically given to the Jewish nation and they agreed to its tenets as a people (Exo 19;Ex 24) . The Covenant given by God and mediated by Christ was completed of His own sovereign power with no say from men. The notion that the New Covenant is conditional is contrary to Scriptures and I am certainly surprised when some devout Calvinists state as much. The New Covenant is God writing on the hearts of men, not men proving that God has written in their hearts. True, they will come into that they will come into the benefits of that Covenant by faith and exemplify the truth of the matter in their maturing lives, but this is also why we shouldn’t be professing this sealing on an infant. Besides the fact that the infant can’t tell her right hand from her left, how much less will she understand God’s salvation?

Also, if the New Covenant were to be almost a better addendum to the Old Covenant (as if believers are the fulfillment of Abraham's covenant) where certain things are supposedly replaced (Sunday for the Sabbath-false; Baptism for Circumcision-false) then it would stand to reason that there would be more restrictions on baptism than paedobaptists are enforcing. The Old Covenant would specify that only males are circumcised on the 8th of the month but paedobaptism offers no restrictions.

Lastly the House baptisms spoken of in Acts and Corinthians in no way prove that infants were baptized in those situations. That’s an argument from silence and in many cases, a logical stretch. In Lydia’s case, a businesswoman about two hundred or so miles from home, I would seriously doubt she was carrying an infant about on her business trip. In Cornelius’ case I would seriously doubt that the infants in the house (if there were any) were also filled with the Holy Spirit and began prophesying. Plus, just because you have a house and a family doesn’t mean that there’s an infant at home.

So finally, infant baptism merely muddies the water on what baptism signifies, is based on false assumptions regarding the Covenant of God and is textually a stretch to establish from Scriptures. To perform the sign as a symbol of the parents dedication still waters down the true significance of the sign, and in those cases I would suggest that parents bring the baby up before the congregation and pray for the parents and the child. This would be an effective public dedication by the parents and in no way besmirches what God has established in the Scriptures for the elect.

-r-

*I could not go on a long discussion regarding the doctrine of Covenants or showing the differences thereof. Jollyblogger placed the burden of proof on those of us who say there is a difference but that goes beyond the scope of this article already 500 words too long.