More On Baptism

Another point about the Baptism debate. I was a little surprised that Bill Shishko used the emotional argument of “What happens to our children?” argument. What if they die in infancy? Are there any promises for Christian parents that their children will be in heaven?

Those are good questions, but I totally fail to see the relevance of them from a Reformed perspective. If one holds to the doctrine of election and original sin as Scripture teaches, what does baptizing infants do? If we are going to parallel them with OT circumcision, did that circumcision save anyone, especially in light of Romans 8 and 9? Is he arguing for an age of accountability and denying original sin?

Then a highly emotional example was used. What about a child that may be severely mentally handicapped? This I thought was great. I really thought Dr. White should have knocked the ball out of the park with this one. The reason is simple. We should baptize every person who is not able to choose Christ with the utmost urgency. Obviously Shisko is supporting some kind of baptismal promise unto salvation theory?

It might be countered that the baptism of a mentally challenged person only counts if the father is converted. So my question is, what do we do with those without parents? This kind of thinking gets quite convoluted. There is simply no end.

White was right when he states that Baptism is not circumcision. Circumcision was pointing forward to the inner work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. Baptism is a work in which a man that is united by faith in Christ looks back to the finished work of Christ brought about by the applied work of the Spirit circumcising his heart.

If Shishko is going to be consistent in equating who is to be baptized with those who were circumcised under the Old Covenant, then just as children partook of the “Sader” meal in OT times, it should follow that children under the New Covenant should partake of the Lord’s Table. IMHO anyway.