And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2.40)

Essentially your argument is that warning people of the consequence of their actions is not going to change their behaviour. The OT prophets seem to have got that one wrong, big time.

According to RC, only children who have Christian parents receive salvation, so the little boy who was surely killed in the Tsunami, most likely was damned to Hell.

With this kind of doctrine, it’s no wonder so many evangelicals are exploring Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Paedobaptists like myself would respond by saying that Colossians 2.11-12 is the link between circumcision and baptism.

The logic of Covenant theology in regards to the sacraments goes like this:

1) Food that is imbibed to remember God rescuing his people. Food is imbibed on a regular basis by members of the covenant.
OT: Passover
NT: Lord’s Supepr

2) Sign of entry into the people of God is a once-off event that is given to all adult non-members as they join and to the children of covenant members.
OT: Circumcision
NT: Baptism

As it is, I agree that it is easy to go out of balance with our children either way. Speaking as a Baptist, we need to make sure that we have a thoroughgoing theology of children. Clearly, God is in some sense a respecter of families. There is both an added blessing and obligation to growing up in the church under believing parents, where by God’s grace the Gospel should be lived out and modeled day by day. We trust that this gospel consistency is a powerful force, that the prayers of the righteous avail much and God blesses the hopes of the faithful. But as Baptists we need to articulate this clearer.

One thing to keep in mind: fear of hell never really saved anyone. Fear of hell doesn’t really transform; by itself, it only feeds selfishness. It is the love of Christ alone which transforms – ‘apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ.’ I’m still trying to figure out how to apply this to my children. I want my children ultimately to obey not because they’re afraid of what will happen if they don’t, but because they want to obey. I want my children to want a relationship with God, to be drawn to Christ, to find him beautiful. To do this, they need both Law and Gospel at the same time. ‘Law-work before Evangelism’ is a false dichotomy. They need to see both Law and Gospel to truly understand and be drawn to his love. “Praise the grace whose threats alarmed thee, roused thee from thy fatal ease / Praise the grace whose promise warmed thee; praise the grace that whispered peace.”

One of the most important points you address is the issue of assurance – that is, the evidence of salvation in our lives.

The problem with using good works as evidence is that it becomes quite arbitrary: What level of good works is required to assure oneself of one’s own (or another person’s) salvation?

The issue of whether you can judge another person to be saved or not is sort of moot anyway. While I think it is right to assume unbelief in the case of major sins there is always the possibility (however remote) that they may be believers. Nevertheless it would still be the responsibility of the church to, say, refuse membership or communion to a person who claims to be a Christian but who is indulging in sin (adultery, homosexual practices, voting for Democrats… no, strike that last one!).

The real problem, however, concerns one’s own assurance. Is it right to look at works as THE basis for assurance?

I think that works are a good indicator, but they are just an indicator of something rather than an indicator of salvation.

I think the best way to determine one’s own assurance is to ask yourself “Do I trust in Jesus as my Saviour? Do I have faith?”. If the person recognises that it is the presence of faith, rather than the amount, then they can know they are a Christian. The reason is that the presence of faith is something that the Spirit gives to people (ie monergism) and that it is impossible to have faith without being unregenerate.

In the practical case here of children, it is always going to be a worrisome time for parents who wonder about the faith of their children. Their level of obedience or disobedience is not the issue, but whether they profess faith in Christ. And this faith is a simple faith – it is not the ability to explain the Trinity or justification or the atonement – but rather a childlike trust (after all, they ARE children) in Christ.

And let me return to being a Paedo as I conclude. If a child is a Christian, why deny them baptism?