Thanks for the comment.

1) Yes, correct. Where Dr Leithart draws the “body border” at assembled flesh, I see that as Old Covenant. The New Covenant border is assembled flesh that is Spirit-filled. Bible history is a sacrificial rite, so Pentecost transformed things. The Federal Vision should be a world filled with Spirit-filled, baptized people, not merely baptized people. We’ve been there, done that.

2) I’ll look up Turtullian. Sounds interesting (I’m not very well read but I have heard him quoted a fair bit). I think God is merciful. James Jordan rightly rails against the church’s various ways of messing up Communion, and that we ought to sought it out according to the biblical pattern, but he also rightly says God is accommodating. I’d suggest the same thing with baptism. Calvin and Luther were unquestionably members of the church, so your marriage analogy is a good one.

I have two questions for you
1) do you maintain Credobaptism and yet mostly agree with Leithart that baptism grafts us into the body of Christ?
2) If baptism is effectual, could you say that John Calvin and Luther were actually baptized, yet their baptism was inappropriate?

What I’m getting at here is that most credos would say baptism must take place after repentance, thus Paedobaptism isn’t really baptism. the trouble with this is that virtually no one would then have been baptized for over 1000 years including the reformers. If baptism as a rite does something, a credo who believes this might believe Paedobaptism is something akin to say, arranging a marriage for your child and conducting the ceremony at 6 months old. So 20 years later, assuming the surrounding culture accepts the marriage, someone might say the marriage rite was unwise and reflects a distorted theology of marriage, yet still accept the efficacy of the rite.

Not sure if you are familiar with Turtullian’s “on baptism”. In it he says ‘let them be made christians when the can know Christ’. This is the first explicit mention of Paedobaptism in church history, and he is arguing against the practice. Yet notice by his wording he is implying the efficacy of the infant baptism is not in doubt. you can search for his full essay on CCEL

Regarding qualification for baptism, this is really not an issue. We are to test the spirits. I know that applies to teachers, but the whole idea of the New Covenant is that we no longer wrestle flesh and blood. We are to be discerning. Ministry now transcends familial, community, cultural and national boundaries. Paedobaptism is familial. So it’s not actually baptism.

I don’t know if infants are saved, but God is merciful. I don’t think the Bible gives us any guarantees – just David’s mourning for his son and Jesus’ statement about little ones having angelic guardians. But this would apply to all infants, not baptized ones.

On the FV issue, I think PJL makes some very good observations on the depth of what baptism is. I don’t know how far I’d go with that, but he is onto something in the text. My point was that applying this rite to those who have not repented and believed is what makes it magical. Applying it to those who have repented and believed makes it Covenant obedience, to which God responds as He promised. He puts us into the Body. And even the angels in heaven rejoice.

Adults who refuse baptism are disobedient. But the ones I’ve met have been either misinformed or had a bad experience. That’s only two people. All the rest who have been hesitant have felt the Spirit compelling them, and they have come round in the end.

So I think baptism certainly does something. We obey God, and He gives the increase.

I hope I haven’t misunderstood your objections in any way. Feel free to comment further if I have.

The problem in Europe is church discipline.
Also, You can’t just strip the OT of it’s spirituality. Flesh and The Natural may be in the foreground but there is still a spiritual reality.
P.S.
Roger Williams might have some objections about your children being baptized. No matter how much theological and biblical training you have you still have the problem of determining the subjective responce of repentence. Williams understood that well.

I let it go at that.

Matt

As for your “magic rite” response, I’m just not sure you’ve gone “FV” enough on this point! When you get baptized, you get the Spirit and forgiveness (Acts 2:38), washing (Acts 22:16), and incorporation into Christ (Gal 3:27). That’s just what the Bible says. After all, baptism (not Levitical washings of the body) now saves us (1 Pet 3:21), or no? Thus, if, as per your above last paragraph, “infant baptism is not the answer”, fine, but neither would credo-baptism be the answer. For wouldn’t we have to conclude that ANY (including adults) who refuse baptism are also refusing the above cited biblical blessings of the Covenant? Or have we boxed ourselves into an exegetically unsound corner (i.e. “baptism doesn’t really DO anything”) for the sake of our systematic theology (i.e. “baptism is no magic rite”)?

It’s not skill or training. Its logic.

On households again, we are given the requirements for baptism quite clearly. Each passage in Acts follows the Feasts. The baptisms occur at Atonement/Laver and households always seems to appear at Tabernacles/Booths/Shekinah. Luke is making a point. And his point has nothing to do with babies. It is architectural. The Old Covenant formed the house and the New Covenant was filling it with fire.

The Red Sea crossing was corporate, and it was a type. PBs push the analogy too far, beyond the boundaries of New Covenant baptism. Paul is calling for a spiritual unity/integrity, not a physical or fleshly one.

Yep, a Christian’s baby is in the same boat as a non-Christian’s, except, as you say, they will hear the gospel. It was the same under Moses.

I don’t believe your beautiful little girls could have responded to the call of Christ. A response to a call is not passive.

Good point on the baptist mess. But I don’t think lack of paedobaptism is the actual problem. Perhaps a lack of solid Bible teaching, obedience, and some good Covenant theology. Paedobaptism in Europe created its own mess over hundreds of years. As I have mentioned before, Finland is 90% baptized with 3% church attendance. PB is not the solution. Repentance and faith is the solution.

My daughters were baptized around the age of 10. My son is 9 and I think he’s ready. I have no doubt that any of them are regenerate. They know exactly what the Lord’s table means (probably better than most adults do) and what baptism entails.

If Paul had repented and believed, yes, he would have been saved. Baptism is a step of obedience (and not by proxy!) If baptism is impossible, because, for instance, you are nailed to a cross, you made it into the Head, but not into the Body, at least not to a physical gathering. You qualified for knighthood but were killed on the way to the ceremony. I’d say that’s even more glorious!

Thanks for your thoughts.

I used to be credo baptist. I think the 2 things that pushed me in the direction of PB was: 1 biblicaly, the Red Sea crossing: I couldn’t conceive no babies being carried across. 2. practically, the Anabaptist mess that characterizes American Christianity. Roger Williams sums it up nicely, “It is me and thee (his wife) and I’m not sure about thee”.

Regarding death of infants before baptism: If Paul died on the road to Demascus before his baptism whould he have gone to heaven? Acts 2 repentence is to those whom God calls. Infants of christians are called and on that road to baptism as Paul was. Credos don’t have that outlook. For you a christian’s baby is in the same boat as any non christian though they may have a better chance.

I have to girls 2 and 6 months. They have been called they have been baptized.

Blessings

Good observation. But I don’t think paedobaptism is the solution, not with all the other doctrines it rides over roughshod.

Repentance always concerns specific acts of sin. The promise was not just for Jews but also those “afar off” who hadn’t heard yet.

If original sin, the sin nature, was dealt with by Christ, then all infants are under God’s mercy. Can’t prove it, but it wouldn’t surprise me. And it would tie in with Jesus’ statement that infants have (or had) angelic guardians.

But as I said, infant baptism is not the solution for this. If it were, then any Christian who failed to baptize their infant was condemning their infant. It turns baptism into a magic rite instead of a step of public obedience.