Tags
Paedobaptism: Fostering A Non-Christian Society
If the Paedobaptists ever break down the one restraint on nominal, external, hereditary Christianity that they have left, that is, the requirement that the baptized infant shall confess his faith before he partakes of communion, then all significant differences between the church and the world will be threatened. This is not to say that the position of believer’s baptism is foolproof; but it tends to inculcate in everyone baptized that without which New Testament Christianity cannot survive, namely, an “I-Thou” encounter with the living God in the form of a personal commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Kierkegaard once asked this question: How is it that “Christendom” is from generation to generation a society of non-Christians? His answer should be pondered:
The Christianity of “Christendom” sees that everything depends upon establishing the maxim that one becomes a Christian as a child, that if one is rightly to become a Christian, one must be such from infancy. This is the basic falsehood. If this is put through, then good night to the Christianity of the New Testament! (The Instant, No. 7, “The Formula of Christendom”, Attack Upon Christendom, p. 212)
– Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism & The Covenant of Grace, p. 243.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Preventing Eisogesis and Doctrinal Error with the Greek Language
Why Baptist Must Remain Distinct
The Elephant Sitting in the Paedobaptist Room
Why I Reject Infant Baptism As A Biblical Practice
5 Pt. Salt 
Only if you think water baptism saves. There are those who baptise/dedicate infants for non-salvific reasons. To lump all paedobaptists in one basket might not be wise.
Not necessarily. One who is ‘baptized’ as an infant may grow up thinking they are saved because of it, and take their place in society as a professing Christian, even when unregenerate.
Might grow up that way, but might not, if the parents are doing their due diligence in teaching their offspring. I agree with you, but refuse to put all those who baptize infants in one basket. It seems to me that the most important issue here concernns baptismal regeneration, which is not biblical. there are other reasons given and actually supported with scripture to permit infant baptism. Not saying I personally approve or not…..just sayin’.
All false doctrine has consequences – some obvious, some less so. Paedobaptism is not innocuous. Infant baptism is no baptism. Thus, there is damage done to the true doctrine of baptism.
Tell it to Calvin.
Calvin has nothing to do with this, except for the intellectually vacuous who, lacking the desire and/or ability for serious thought anddiscourse, must las out at someone/something.
Calvin believed in the efficacy of infant baptism. That’s why I brought him up.
Calvin was wrong on a number of biblical issues.
Which is why I cited the Bible in my replies and not Calvin, for whom I have great respect. God’s Word is inerrant, our interpretations of it are not. I always try to keep an open mind, on this issue as well as many others. If someone were to convince me that paedobaptism was completely unscriptural, I would like to think that I would admit I was wrong and correct myself. However, no one has ever done so. I believe that there is support for my position in the Bible, while understanding that there are those who disagree. It’s not like dispensationalism, which has been discussed much here recently, and which is clearly in error. Just the belief that animal sacrifice will be reinstituted, which would deny the finality of Christ’s sacrifice as shown in Hebrews, is enough to show the falsity of this teaching. I don’t believe you could argue against infant baptism in the same way.
This is one area in which I still disagree with you. I believe that there are valid covenental reasons for paedobaptism. While each of us must respond to God’s call individually to recieive salvation, God calls us to be a people, His people. Just as circumcision did not guarantee that one was a member of the True Israel, God’s elect, so being baptised as a child does not guarantee that one is saved. Baptism cannot save anyone any more than circumcision could. However, verses such as 1 Cor 7:14 (“For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”) implies that the children of believing parents are covenentally set apart (made holy). Again, this does not mean they are regenerate, but that they have been set apart and it is the parents responsibility to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” (Eph 6:4, ESV) We baptize our children in recognition of this.
“but that they have been set apart and it is the parents responsibility to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” (Eph 6:4, ESV)
Who “set them apart” from the unregenerate as infants? God or You?
I can’t declare anyone holy or consecrated as I could with utensils used for the Lord’s supper, for instance. It is as a child of a believing parent, a member of a covenantal household, that they are set apart. As it states in Luke 18:16, “But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”
I am reminded of how the Israelites were all brought under the covenant, however not all were Israel in the spiritual, salvific sense. Does that even apply here?
Yes, that’s my undertanding. Baptism is the sign of being under the covenant just as circumcision was to ancient Israel. As I have said before, I’m not a pastor or scholar, just a guy sitting in the pews who enjoys reading theology, but in my study of Scripture, I have found that paedobaptism has enough support to convince me of its validity.
I would like to see folks discuss both pro and con aspects of each and just understand that salvation is by faith alone. Sure there are those, going all the way back to the Reformatin and the Anabaptists who might throw the ‘other guy’ under the bus, but we can agreeably disagree on some issues.
I think that recognition of the difference between the two covenants is important here. The first covenant was based on law, and required obedience as a requisite, the second and pefect covenant is one of grace. But irrespective of either , sovereign election is something that is evident throughout both covenants , and this highlights one of the more glaring anomolies of paedobaptism, the paedobaptist reformer will defend unconditional election , and then presume to force God’s hand by believing that they can baptise whoever into the covenant.
Quote
Yes, that’s my undertanding. Baptism is the sign of being under the covenant just as circumcision was to ancient Israel.
end quote
Gods election is sure, either you’ve been elected to salvation or you haven’t, the sign of being under the covenant is circumcision of the heart, as per Ezekiel 36:26
And I will take away the stoney heart out of your flesh , and I will give you an heart of flesh.
I am perplexed as to why paedobaptists avoid this , circumcision under the old covenant was performed by men as a sign of the covenant, and this serves as a shadow of the true form of circumcision that Paul outlines in Romans 2:29 , as now performed by the Spirit. And , there is no mention of infant baptism anywhere to be found.
Calvin was brilliant. But Calvin was wrong about baptism. Van Til and Bahnsen were brilliant, but they were wrong about baptism. The Puritans were wonderful godly folk, but they were wrong about baptism. I am a nobody, and I am certainly no Calvin, but I am right about baptism. KInda cool, after a fashion.