The Voice Of One Crying Out In Suburbia

Baptize 'em all

Let God sort 'em out!

The infant baptism debate rages on over at Voice of the Sheep. It is pretty frustrating on both sides and doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but it is a good exercise in digging deeper in the text. On more that one occasion I have gotten up from the laptop, grabbed a study Bible or commentary to make sure I was on with what I was saying. I doubt that anyone is going to change their minds, but it still is a good challenge.

I get some of where they are coming from as far as the covenant argument. Taking in a vacuum some of those make sense, at least until you run into Jeremiah 31 and the clear teaching on the subject of baptism in the New Testament.

What is disturbing is the arguments that basically say we baptize our kids and assume they are believers until the prove otherwise. That flies in the face of the New Testament and the New Covenant, and I would say it flies in the face of Calvinism even though Calvin baptized infants. The "L" in the TULIP stands for Limited Atonement, which is described as: The doctrine of definite atonement (or more commonly, limited atonement) addresses the purpose of the atoning death of Christ. It maintains that God's design and intent in sending Christ to die on the cross was to pay for the sins and secure the redemption of those whom God has predetermined to save, namely the elect. Therefore the primary benefits of his death (especially as an atonement) were designed for and accrue only to believers. (from Theopedia)

So Christ atoned only for the elect, by His shed blood and yet we are supposed to knowingly baptize people for whom Christ did not make atonement and for whom His blood has no value? And these are the people who have claimed the exclusive mantle of "Truly Reformed"? Dare I say that infant Baptism fits better into an Arminian theology, baptize all infants and hope for the best? It is an odd display and combination of sentimentality, tradition and pride that drives paedobaptism: sentimentality where our children are concerned, because who wants to think of their children as not being elect even though the evidence shows that plenty of children raised by Christian parents grow up to not be Christians. Tradition because paedo's cling to the way their church has always done things and in some of the reformed confessions that must not be questioned or challenged. Pride because we assume that God is a respecter of persons, at least where our kids are concerned.

I have been trying to work through Fred Malone's A String of Pearls Unstrung in my spare time. It is a great little booklet that lays to rest many of the paedo arguments, by a guy who went paedo because it seemed like only paedo's got Reformed theology so they must be right on baptism too, only to come to realize how wrong on that subject our Presbyterians brethren are. When you lay out the paedo position, it seems like a great argument until you start picking off the arguments one pearl at a time and find that there is simply no Biblical justification for infant baptism. Not by commandment. Not by example. Not by inference. You can read A String of Pearls Unstrung online at Founders website here.