Does Paedobaptism Count?

This is a response to this video representing infant baptism from Doug Wilson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La5-BKaMJD8

(For further study on baptisms see here.)

Dilemma- There is no example of baby baptism in the NT.  

1. “Neither is there any example of a kid from a Christian home getting baptized especially when he had been a Christian for years”. 

What he calls arguments from silence are different in scriptures. Using his standard, you could say this is an argument from silence- “unto which of the angels said he at any time...” Heb.1:5,13 Or maybe 7:14 “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.” Or Jesus was using it in Luke 4:25-7. The working assumption with the Jews in Israel in Jesus' time was that they had a closed canon. This is why they would say things like “Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” Jn.7:52 Why? Because there isn’t a verse to confirm. This could also lead to a discussion of the regulative or normative principles of worship. 

 

2. "The pedobaptist tends to believe that the Old Testament applies to us unless the New Testament says that it doesn't.”  

This is a moot point. The NT omits the necessity of circumcision for the church. Thus, you would only need to argue that circumcision is replaced by baptism as the church ‘replaces Israel’. This comment is like saying ‘I have news to tell you.’ Don’t tell me you have news to tell me, just tell me the news. Show the connection rationally in scripture, Old or New Testament. 

Baptism is a figure as was circumcision. They are figures of something greater, the putting off of the old man (Deut.10:16, Jer.4:4) or the flesh by the death of Christ in our stead. (Col.2:11-13, Rom.6:4-7) 

 

3. “Children of the covenant were included in the covenant for 1800 years and wouldn't we need some clear instruction in the New Testament before removing them?”  

Circumcision was explicitly instructed for infants. (Gen.17:12) And as you read Gen.17 it is tied to the physical descendants of Abraham for the inheritance of the promised land; actual real estate. The makeshift connection to physical baptism is not a functional work around. Especially when the NT application for the church is already given. Baptism is a figure as was circumcision. They are figures of something greater, the putting off of the old man (Deut.10:16, Jer.4:4) by the death of Christ in our stead. (Col.2:11-13, Rom.6:4-7) 

 

4. Paedobaptists regarding the new covenant “says that they are already in and we would need an argument for kicking them out”. 

This assumes that babies of unbelievers go to hell, or unbaptized ones do. If you are in the New Covenant your sins are forgiven and you are regenerated- Jer.31:33-4, Ezek.36:25-7. This point is because of reformed covenant theology and original sin. Which those zealous to baptize babies want to align themselves with historically. Holding men's person in admiration because of some perceived advantage. 

 

5. Imagine the chaos “if the terms of the new covenant had required the exclusion of previously included circumcised Jewish children” 

This is just question begging. Assuming physical circumcision and baptism are equivalent. Again, baptism is a figure as was circumcision. They are figures of something greater, the putting off of the old man (Deut.10:16, Jer.4:4) or the flesh by the death of Christ in our stead. (Col.2:11-13, Rom.6:4-7) Then he calls Ja.2:2, 5:14 synagogues to strengthen his point. But it’s a church not an unbelieving Jewish synagogue or a mixture. Jewish Christians went to synagogues on the Sabbath but to churches on Sunday. 

 

 

6. This inferred square is supposed to show the ‘obvious’ link to physical circumcision & baptism and the undeniable covenant connection between infants circumcised and thus baptized.  

 

The problem is the two top edges of the square should meet in the middle forming a triangle. Because physical baptism is a figure as was physical circumcision. They are figures of something greater, the putting off of the old man (Deut.10:16, Jer.4:4) or the flesh by the death of Christ in our stead. (Col.2:11-13, Rom.6:4-7) This square would conclude that spiritual circumcision is one thing and spiritual baptism is a second work of grace or something. 

 

7. Women are not mentioned taking communion. But because of their status in the New Covenant we infer they do. Likewise, baptizing babies. What relationship do infants have with Christ? We affirm they are in covenant with Christ and should be baptized. 

Children can be under an increased measure of grace by their parents' faith (1 Cor.7:14). But this all still begs the question of whether one can partake of the New Covenant forgiveness without faith. As to the degree of grace all infants may have before their faith is not directly relevant. This seems to assume that babies of unbelievers go to hell, or unbaptized ones do. Their eternal salvation should they die before faith could be a distinct operation of grace unrelated to this question. 

 

8. Turning the scripture “that we adults must become more like children into a requirement that children must become more like us is something that i have trouble figuring out.” 

This seems logically unrelated to anything in this discussion.  

  

9. The Christian Church is part of the covenant God made with Abraham.  

By faith in Christ, yes. And this again begs the question. Physical baptism is a figure as was physical circumcision. They are figures of something greater, the putting off of the old man (Deut.10:16, Jer.4:4) or the flesh by the death of Christ in our stead. (Col.2:11-13, Rom.6:4-7) One can have eternal life without water baptism or physical circumcision, but not without the putting off of the sins of the flesh and the old man being crucified with Christ.