* baptism is an act of obedience to faith in Christ
* baptism is commanded
* baptism always followed repentence in the Scriptures (there were no delays of months or years; there were no pastoral committees to determine whether someone’s faith was genuine; there were no other prerequisites)
* baptism is an outward SIGN of the inward conversion and has no saving power in and of itself
* baptism is an identification with Christ

…then why do we then teach children - after having understood the gospel clearly enough to repent from sin and embrace Christ as their Savior - that they must wait to obey the very one they just submitted their lives to? Why do we impose additional, legalistic, “logical, rational, humanistic,” unbiblical requirements? Don’t we contradict ourselves by such actions? If we have confirmed that their minds and their hearts understand the gospel, then why do we want to set them on a course of delayed obedience? Why do we want them to NOT identify themselves with Christ after having just admitting to crucifying themselves with Christ? Why do we want to observe fruit in their lives (aka obedience to the word of God) before we want them to obey in baptism? Isn’t baptism the first logical fruit to be observed? If they deny Christ before others and choose not to be baptized, then perhaps their “salvation” wasn’t genuine to begin with, in which case we go back and continue to present the gospel to them until they make a clear profession and choose to be identified with Christ in baptism. In other words, baptism itself is the first fruit of obedience; it is the clear public confession of their sin and their need and acceptance of a Savior!

I’m all for ensuring that the child (or believer of any age) makes a confession on their own (not coerced) based on their knowledge of God, Christ, man, sin, heaven, hell, etc. and based on the Spirit’s conviction of their hearts. Let’s not let them make a profession that is lacking clarity and then proceed to baptism - that’s clearly the time to delineate any uncertainties! But I can’t find any scriptural justification for encouraging a true believer of any age to delay obedience to God’s commands. Instead, I find dire warnings for anyone who wants to ignore or interfere with God’s commands - either personally or in the lives of others! Just as clearly as we teach children the gospel, so we should also teach them (and continue to teach them) that the waters of baptism don’t save them. So also should we teach them of the perseverence of the saints. These doctrines should help them understand as they grow in the Lord that baptism is not to be understood as an assurance of salvation, but that salvation along with sanctification will prove one’s faith.

I think you are confusing someone else’s comment with mine. I agree that there is really no way that we can know for sure if someone else is saved. We can have a reasonable assumption, but we cannot know for sure. So in that sense yes, baptism is based upon a believable profession of faith. Someone who does not profess faith should most certainly not be baptized because the lack of a profession would show a lack of faith. A profession can be a false profession, but no profession is a sure sign of no faith.

It just seems that the language Baptists should be using is something like “credible profession” instead of “regeneration” or “true conversion.” It means that we want to make sure the person isn’t getting baptized to impress their girlfriend, but they really want to be a Christian. To suggest that the churches use regeneration, or salvation, as a test of baptism doesn’t reflect (to my knowledge) the practice of Grace, my own baptistic church, or any baptistic church I’ve been a part of.

Someone pointed out that the early church had a lengthy period of catechism before the person was typically baptized. I would argue that this had more to do with the concern that the person didn’t truly understand the gospel worldview, not that they were requiring a probation period. I think this is the very same dynamic New Tribes has attempted to address in their missions work. Missionaries were coming into town, converting many people, but the work was superficial because the “converts” weren’t really converted. They kept 90% of their paganism. To respond to this, the missionaries labored with the people for some time, instructing them to make sure they knew what the Christian worldview really was. Most of the immediate converts early in Acts are already Jewish, or committed to the Jewish worldview.

“It would be helpful first to list the points on which both sides (reformed and non-reformed) agree:

1. Not all will be saved.
2. A free offer of the gospel can rightly be made to every person ever born. It is completely true that “whoever will” may come to Christ for salvation, and no one who comes to him will be turned away. This free offer of the gospel is extended in good faith to every person.
3. All agree that Christ’s death in itself, because he is the infinite Son of God, has infinite merit and is in itself sufficient to pay the penalty of the sins of as many or as few as the Father and the Son decreed. The question is not about the intrinsic merits of Christ’s sufferings and death, but about the number of people for whom the Father and the Son thought Christ’s death to be sufficient payment at the time Christ died.

Beyond these points of agreement, however, a difference remains concerning the following question: “When Christ died, did he actually pay the penalty only for the sins of those who would believe in him, or for the sins of every person who ever lived?” On this question it seems that those who hold to particular redemption have stronger arguments on their side. First, an important point that is not generally answered by advocates of the general redemption view is that people who are eternally condemned to hell suffer the penalty for all of their own sins, and therefore their penalty could not have been fully taken by Christ. Those who hold the general redemption view sometimes answer that people suffer in hell because of the sin of rejecting Christ, even though their other sins were paid for. But this is hardly a satisfactory position, for (1) some have never rejected Christ because they have never heard of him, and (2) the emphasis of Scripture when it speaks of eternal punishment is not on the fact that the people suffer because they have rejected Christ, but on the fact that they suffer because of their own sins in this life (see Rom. 5:6-8, 13-16, et al.).

Another significant point in favor of particular redemption is the fact that Christ completely earned our salvation, paying the penalty for all our sins. He did not just redeem us potentially, but actually redeemed us as individuals whom he loved.

The statement “Christ died for his people only” can be understood to mean that “Christ died to actually pay the penalty for all the sins of his people only.” In that sense it is true. But when non-Reformed people hear the sentence “Christ died for his people only,” they often hear in it, “Christ died so that he could make the gospel available only to a chosen few,” and they are troubled over what they see as a real threat to the free offer of the gospel to every person…On the other hand, the sentence, “Christ died for all people,” is true if it means, “Christ died to make salvation available to all people” or if it means, “Christ died to bring the free offer of the gospel to all people.” In fact, this is the kind of language Scripture itself uses in passages like John 6:51; 1 Tim. 2:6; and 1 John 2:2.”

So we see from Grudem that the free offer of the gospel is available to all people, but only some have had their sins taken by Christ.

You said, “Make a case from Scripture alone that says you can’t baptize someone under the age of 12 or whatever age limit you put on it.”

I think your argument borders on being a strawman. No one hear (to my understanding) has said that baptism cannot be administered “until a certain age.” Age is not the precondition, salvation is the precondition.

You said, “But if you believe in election, then I have a hard time understanding why there should be any concern about baptizing an elect child “before the proper age.””

Baptism does not effect whether or not one is saved or will be saved. Baptism is an act of obedience to Christ’s command. As such, an elect child should not be baptized for any other reason than as a profession of the faith that that child has in Christ. It is not a matter of age. There is no age at which a person should be baptized. When we are saved we are baptized as an act of obedience to Christ. Therefore, baptism should not be administered upon anyone who does not have that purpose.

That aside, surely you see the difference between the baptismal doctrine debate and this article. Grace is not intending to establish dogma on the appropriate age for baptism. They simply are trying to use wisdom and discernment in how to practice the of believer’s baptism with children who, in today’s churches, are so often self-deceived at an early age.

I’m guessing you haven’t read the previous comments about our determination of others’ conversion. If you haven’t yet, read through the comments.

I love the believer’s baptism proponent that says infant baptism isn’t scriptural, but then they put non-scriptural limitations on who gets baptized. ironic, isn’t it?? What God has not forbidden, we must not either.

How can you really tell someone is truly converted anyways? Seriously, we have our questions we ask, but can you ever really know? how many questions was Cornelius asked about his faith before baptism? those in his household? Inevitably baptists baptized just as many reprobates as presbyterians do, but in the presby view of things, that’s how it’s suppose to work. The wheat and tares will grow up together and be separated at the end.