Generally, I consider it unprofitable to engage in divisive arguments concerning sacramental practice when there are far graver matters of heresies against salvationist doctrine itself which have rent the unity of the protestant churches since the days of Arminius and Wesley. Nonetheless, GWB has issued a challenge against the Presbyterian practice of Infant Baptism, and so his arguments shall be answered herein.
Before I begin the formal apologia, I shall turn to “The Basis and Significance of Infant Baptism”, by David A. Sherwood, for my prefaratory remarks:
The basis for infant baptism is neither tradition nor sentiment; it is the teaching of the Word of God. Specifically, it is the biblical teaching that the New Covenant is the continuation and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham; and that, consequently, the principles set forth in the Abrahamic Covenant have a distinct bearing on the New Covenant community. God first made the formal and specific announcement of his purpose to raise up a people for himself in his covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15 & 17), which was most noticeably fulfilled in the calling out of the people of Israel. Part of this covenantal arrangement was the institution of a sign--circumcision--which marked people out as belonging to the covenant community. While circumcision symbolized and represented the highest degree of spiritual blessing (Rom. 4:11), reception of the sign was no guarantee that the blessings would be received (Ishmael and Esau, to name only two). Significantly, the sign of circumcision was applied not merely to males who professed their allegiance to the covenant, but also to those who were born into the covenant family.
The Significance of Infant Baptism
Let us be clear as to what we’re not saying. We are not saying that baptism removes original sin (as would Roman Catholics). We are not saying that the baptized child is guaranteed salvation, or that he will definitely come to faith, or that somehow he doesn’t stand in need of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. To reject infant baptism on the ground that embracing it implies any of the above would be to be guilty of a gross caricature and the toppling of a straw man.
The significance of infant baptism is that it is symbolic and emblematic of one’s participation in the covenant community, the Church. It marks the child out, in the sight of man and in the sight of God, as being a person who has special privileges and special responsibilities. Indeed, great are the blessings and advantages of being raised in a Christian home and in the Church of Jesus Christ! But great are the obligations as well. In a sense, baptism is a double-edged sword: a powerful means of grace and support to those who embrace the terms of the covenant (faith and repentance) but a ground of condemnation and increased judgment for those who reject the terms of the covenant. It is in seeing this dual significance that baptism is properly understood.
Colossians 2: 10 – 25 -- And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
The Covenant is Visible and One.
My response to GWB follows hereafter.
There are no examples of children of believers growing up and then being baptized, either; but there are a number of household baptisms recorded. So your assertion simply assumes your own conclusion.
In fact, had the blood-letting sign of circumcision continued as the Covenant seal, the Covenantal model we would expect is precisely what we find in the New Testament – conversion of adults, followed by Covenant sealing of their households. We would not imagine that the Church – the “Community of belief” -- which had included infants in the sign of the Covenant for 2,000 years, would suddenly imagine that their children should not be included in the Covenant. And yet such a radical change in Covenantal practice would require a direct Scriptural command specifying the change – yet there is none. Scripture clearly informs us that the Covenantal sacrament has been changed from circumcision to baptism; but there is no instruction whatsoever that Covenant families are now supposed to exclude the infants which had already been included in the Covenant sacrament for some 2,000 years.
According to the Reformed view, however, the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIX, paragraph VI) Moreover (and this is vital), the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Spirit to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time. (ibid)< p>Thus, our concern in the administration of baptism is not to ascertain the regenerated status of the candidate, but simply to ascertain if, according to Scripture, he is lawfully to be regarded as a member of the covenant which baptism signifies and seals.
The Scriptures indicate that those of age from non-covenanted backgrounds join the covenant people when they embrace the Christ of the gospel and acknowledge Him as Lord. This was the same standard as found for inclusion in the Older Testament community of faith (though the sign was circumcision). Abraham believed first and was then circumcised. Isaac (as far as we know) was first circumcised and later believed. Once in the covenant, our children come with us. On this point see 1 Corinthians 7:14: “The unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” Since the children of one or two believing parents are “holy”, that is, set apart from the world unto God, they are entitled to the sign and seal of the covenant in terms of which that set-apartness has taken place. The hearts of Baptists are more covenantally oriented than their doctrine at this point. They cannot suppress the desire to bring their children to their God to receive covenant reassurance, but, since they deny the sacrament in principle to their children, they have invented the altogether unbiblical idea of “infant dedication.” The closest Scripture comes to such dedication is in the case of Hannah and Samuel. If Baptists would be consistent with that model, they should leave their children at the church after the ceremony when they go home!
Thus, we baptize infants, not because they have repented and believed, as is required of those of age, but simply because God commands us to administer the covenant sign and seal to our own. If the sheep are His, my friend, so are the lambs. Baptism means, “You belong to God.” I belong to God. My children belong to me. Therefore, my children belong to God. The family, not the individual, is the basic covenant unit. This cannot be emphasized too strongly. The powerful influence of Baptistic theology in North America has played no small part in fostering the terribly unbiblical individualism that characterizes our continent. It is this individualism that makes family baptism so offensive or, at best, puzzling to non-Reformed folk. But seeing that the promise is to us and our children, it is the most natural thing in the world for us. Remember that wicked Ham, solely in virtue of his relation to Noah, was taken on board the ark. Examples could easily be multiplied demonstrating the covenant status of children. That is why the household baptisms in the New Testament are just what we'd expect to find, on covenant principles.
I would remind you that baptism, being a covenant sign and seal, can just as well serve as a sacrament of the covenant curse as the covenant blessing. To those who were brought up in covenant homes, but who refuse to believe and obey, their baptism will be an eternal witness against them, as they will be judged in terms of it and what it suggests. Therefore, we do not raise our children in terms of presumptuousness, but rather to an organic covenant obedience. We urge them not to repent once, believe once, obey once, but to repent always, believe always, obey always. Thus they are taught to look always to God, whereas our Baptist friends not infrequently tend to comfort themselves in terms of their “decision for Christ,” which, sadly, often leaves them looking comfortlessly to themselves.
The Covenant is Visible and One.