I appreciate your post. I was a baptist for a long time, and am now a paedobaptist. I agree with you that over 90% of infant baptism resources just seem to pound home the continuation of the covenant, Covenant, COVENANT! I do agree with the covenantal argument. But since you do not, I am not surprised that your mind remains unchanged after reading MANY such infant baptism resources.

Just in case you are interested, I invite you to read a couple of arguments for infant baptism which are *not* covenantally-based.

You said “Jesus taught credobaptism in his ministry and in the Gospels. This explains what is, for me, the mountain that will not be moved: the absence of examples of infant baptism in the New Testament.” — Well, I disagree with your statement. I do not think Jesus ever taught credobaptism in the New Testament. The second link below makes this argument.

When you have some time and some interest, please read these two links:

http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/baptism-ot.htm

http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/baptism-edwards1.htm

Thank you, my brother!

In Christ,
Joseph Gleason
http://www.biblelighthouse.com
http://www.reformationsuperhighway.com

Good arguments for believer’s baptism, Michael. Succinct and Biblical, which I appreciate.

Perhaps you might think with me, briefly, of the influence of the art of politics on His church – the institution, and perhaps the Body.

While the Biblical admonition for adult baptism is clear, the desire to assure infants a place in eternity began with the church fathers, Cyprian for one. The Apostolic Constitution (c.360) encouraged infant baptism. However, the issue of baptism as it became traditional in The RCC resembles a desire to control the attending families by claiming their children for God – read: the institution of the church. Both Luther and Calvin realized the necessity for this as they set up their own church/state environments and the tradition lives on today in the hearts of unthinking Christians and their denominational structures.

The hierarchy within all denominations has obvious parallels to political structuring and ignores the fact that Paul defined only two offices in his letters to Timothy and Titus. I believe the characteristic/gifts of Ehp 4 are just that – not titles or offices.

The council at Dortrecht was convened to answer the remonstrance movement in Holland resulting in the TULIP doctrines. “All Arminians” get out and they did. Theological issues got tangled up in politics and visa versa. All were served poorly and the mess continues.

When doctrinal issues divide the Body of Christ political solutions are right around the corner.

The idea of politics may come from the Koine word politeuoo found used here in Philippians 1:27: “Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” NKJV

Albert Barnes has a very good comment on this verse.

Thayers defines (NT:4176) politeuoo (conduct) as follows:

1. to be a citizen
2. to administer civil affairs, manage the state
3. to make or create a citizen
4. to behave as a citizen; to avail oneself of or recognize the laws

Isn’t it a shame we don’t embrace the limited definition of this word instead of the manipulative, favor trading, back stabbing monster it has become. It is grossly abused in the world and does not belong in the church – Body or institution. One spirit and one mind would be refreshing, no?

Which brings me to the point of water baptism of youth. I am a Presbyterian from birth, and my Godson I Roman Catholic. I was at an Urban Missionary outreach on the street with a friend who people think is strange, but our best friend was born in a manger. My Godson who was very young at the time walked up to me and asked me if I was a Priest. What? Water baptism of infants? OK, so my mom let my dad name me Winston Tobias (Tobias, Tobijah, Tobiadonijah, Tob again excuse my spelling) Please forgive me when I don’t understand theological constructs but stick to the KJV only and especially not the N-IV (N4) for wisdoms sake (666) which is obvious to me after word comparisons between the to then discerning what is written on the cover and lack of authorization by kings, prophets, priests, and gifts of the Spirit which some decided are not needed today, only for 10,000 years earlier.

www. Chaplain Winston .com

A seminary professor and I used to go around on this debate nearly every week. I stopped arguing after an experience during my CPE at Children’s Hospital in Pittsburgh fourteen years ago. The three-year old daughter of a very devout and dedicated Baptist elder had been hit by a car in front of her father – she was not expected to survive. In the Intensive Care Unit, the father asked me to baptize his daughter. Taking a bottle of sterile water from the nurses’ station, I baptized her in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The water mixed with the blood on her head and came down over her forehead, and I suddenly realized with a clarity I had never know before that Baptism is what God does, not what we do. Christ had claimed her as his own, and the water mixed with blood reminded me that His atoning sacrifice on the Cross makes every sacrament “effective” and his grace does not depend on what I do. My difficulty for a long time with the argument that Baptism is only efficacious when it is administered as the result of an adult decision is that it makes the grace of the sacrament dependent on the one baptized. Which is a form of “works righteousness” isn’t it?

When I saw my professor several weeks after I baptized the little girl, I said, “I will not argue this matter any more. I may be wrong intellectually, but I think I now understand Baptism spiritually in a way I never have before.”

My experience will not prevent others from arguing about this matter – it enabled me to give up another one of the many useless exercises in trying to “explain” the great mystery of God’s grace.

It is an interesting question: at what age is a person’s confession of faith suitable for baptism?

But overall I find nothing disagreeable here, despite being one of those nasty BHT baby-baptizers (whose youngest child was four when he was baptized).

Thanks for your post, and for the graciousness towards those of us who practice infant baptism. When our kids were born, I was absolutely sure we would dedicate them, and allow them to make a conscious decision to be baptized later in life. What changed my mind was being reminded of God’s prevenient grace, which is at work long before we chose to follow Christ.

I was baptized twice, once as a baby in the Episcopalian Church, which my parents resigned from when I was very young (and Christianity had made no impact on me); and later after I became a born-again Christian, in an evangelical mega-church.

I’m now a convert to Roman Catholicism, and it’s the infant baptism they recognize.

Thanks.