Excellent post AM. I'm pinging a few of our Baptist Calvinists buddy here. As the author states, I'm not sure it makes me want to switch my believer baptism views, but I've had a hard time understanding the meaning of infant baptism before this article.
I don't get "bent out of shape" over infant Baptism because Baptism is not salvational. I do prefer "believer's Baptism" because it is the product of an adult desire to repent and publicly declare your faith.
It is the understanding that you are only saved by Grace through Faith not works that is the key.
I had the opportunity to witness to a RC last week and she mentioned that infant Baptism was essential to remove sin, after I had discussed believer's Baptism. I responded by asking her what sins Jesus Christ had removed when John the Baptist Baptized him.
This always reminds me of John Piper and his little suggestion in his church that believer's baptisms should not necessarily be a requirement for church membership. I believe he was voted down, but it's interesting that he has also preached against infant baptism:
From "I BAPTIZE YOU WITH WATER" :
"Now what does all this tell us about baptism? Three things: 1. It tells us that John's baptism is not simple continuation of circumcision. This is important because those who defend infant baptism often appeal to circumcision as the old sign of the covenant and say that baptism is the new sign. The one was given to infants and so should the other be. Circumcision was the sign of belonging to the Old Covenant people of God. Every Jewish male received it. If you were born Jewish, you received the sign of the covenant as a baby boy. So at least some of the Pharisees and Sadducees came to see circumcision as the sign of God's favor and of their security as the covenant people. But John's baptism was a radical attack on this false security. He infuriated the Pharisees by calling the people to renounce reliance on the sign of the covenant that they got when they were infants, and to receive another sign to show that they were not relying on Jewish birth, but on the mercy of God received by repentance and faith. A new people within Israel was being formed, and a new sign of a new covenant was being instituted. It was not a simple continuation of circumcision. It was an indictment of a misuse of circumcision as a guarantee of salvation. Circumcision was a sign of ethnic continuity; baptism was a sign of spiritual reality. ...."
Frankly, I'm conflicted on what I would think if a similar suggestion came up in my church. My inclination is that I would have voted "no", but that's not in stone. Piper was careful to couch his idea to apply only to someone if he “sincerely and humbly believes that it would be contrary to Scripture and conscience--and not just contrary to family tradition or desires--to be baptized by immersion and thus to count his infant ‘baptism’ or his adult sprinkling as improper or invalid.”
I wonder if there really are a lot of people in that category. I wouldn't imagine so. While still in my Christian infancy, my initial resistance to a believer's baptism was only because of the public nature of it, it had nothing to do with some view that my own infant baptism somehow "counted" definitively. Do any of you have a view on whether you would have supported Piper?