People wage culture wars in Babylon, and to whatever extent they win or lose, Babylon continues to be just that—Babylon!  It will not be annihilated, and it will not be transformed into something else.

One account of boldness is on the part of Abraham when he petitions God for Sodom if anyone can be found to be righteous (while bold, Abraham also showed tremendous meekness).  His boldness can be seen to be rooted in the future.  Abraham was looking forward to the last days, when God will bring final judgment upon the wicked yet preserve the righteous.  This truth is seen clearly in Revelation.

Genesis 18:22-26 So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. Then Abraham drew near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” And the LORD said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

The same can be seen in the account of Noah.  He displayed boldness in his generation in building the ark in obedience to God.  The picture created in the flood account of the preservation of a remnant and destruction of the wicked in the last days is shown in Matthew and Luke.

Matthew 24:39-40 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left.

Luke 17:34-37 I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed.  One will be taken and the other left. There will be two women grinding together.  One will be taken and the other left.” And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.”

Many people see these passages as examples of the “rapture” of God’s people and there removal from the earth.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Clearly the righteous remain and wicked are removed and taken to “where the corpse is” and where “the vultures gather.”  Noah’s boldness is rooted in this eschatological promise.

Abraham, Joshua, and Caleb in the following verses are looking forward to rest in the promised land.  This wasn’t just a temporal rest in the near future, but a foreshadowing of the future eschatological sabbath rest in Christ and in the New Heavens and New Earth.

Numbers 14:6-8 And Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had spied out the land, tore their clothes and said to all the congregation of the people of Israel, “The land, which we passed through to spy it out, is an exceedingly good land. If the LORD delights in us, he will bring us into this land and give it to us, a land that flows with milk and honey

Hebrews 11:8-10  By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.

Hebrews 11:16  But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

Our boldness  should also be rooted in eschatology, and also in the finished work of Christ.  Christ is now seated at the right hand of the Father.  His reign and rule are a current reality, not some future earthly reign.  Our future hope lies in the fact that we are citizens of a “better country, that is, a heavenly one.”

One of the aspects of Scripture that is sadly missed today is it’s unity.  In Scripture there is no plan for the Jews and then later a separate plan for the Gentiles.  There is one plan for God’s covenant people that extends from Genesis to Revelation.  And this is where our boldness and hope lies.

It may well be that the end-times madness we have witnessed, first in the late 1970′s, again during the Gulf War and again in recent years, is really a search for certainty. Just as earlier generations turned away from the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments, in favor of revivals, our age seems bent on finding confirmation of the faith in the delusion that we are witnesses to the end of history.

They seek confirmation of the faith in everything but the simple fact that Christ died for His people.  To the Dispensationalist, Word and Sacrament are not enough to convey the Gospel.  They see a need to look to current events in order to interpret them in a manner that “proves” God is still working out his purposes in history.  This is what happens when you have a theological system that is centered on something other that Christ.

I have been thinking quite a bit about baptism lately.  The road to the Reformed (read Biblical) view has been challenging and very rewarding.  The following is just a very simple explanation of my understanding of the subject.  Having had the sign and seal of baptism applied to my son was a truly awesome experience.  Sharing in the promises made to Abraham  and witnessing in a physical act what God has promised His people and their children was amazing.  Looking back on this it saddens me to see so many Baptists miss out on this opportunity.  The objections to this doctrine, to me, do not hold water.  Also keep in mind that there was little opposition to this doctrine before the Anabaptists in the mid 16th century.  So hopefully the following will be a help or reinforcement for anyone studying the paedobaptist position.

First I will explain the position and the Biblical evidence for it.  To do this we need to see how Scripture views children and the successive generations of God’s people.  Not only that, but we need to see how they relate to the covenant.

In Genesis, God establishes an “everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants.

The covenant sign and seal in the OT was circumcision.  This covenant sign and seal was applied to infants.

This covenant (in reformed theology, the covenant of Grace), is said to be everlasting.  It is the same covenant that runs through both the OT and NT.  It is this covenant that ties all of Scripture together, and it is through this covenant that God’s people are saved, both in the OT and the NT.  This covenant in the NT includes Gentile believers.  Not only are we said to be Abraham’s offspring (to whom the promises also applied in Genesis 17 above), but we are specifically included in the “commonwealth of Israel” and partakers in the “covenants of promise.”  Not only has this covenant been expanded to include Gentile believers, but also includes their children (see Genesis 17).  This is why you may hear the term “covenant children” in Reformed circles.

The sign and seal of this covenant in the NT has been changed from circumcision to baptism.

Col 2:11-12 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

There is no command in Scripture to now restrict this sign to adults.  The covenant has been expanded not restricted.  Covenant succession is the same throughout Scripture.  Generational blessings and inclusion in the covenant do not stop with the advent of Christ:

Therefore we continue to apply the covenant sign and seal to our children.  We have never been told to stop.  For thousands of years God’s people have applied the sign to their households to signify nothing the person has done, but as a sign of God’s faithfulness to His people.  To restrict the sign and withhold it from covenant children would have been unthinkable to the first Jewish converts, and it should be just as unthinkable today to both Gentile and Jew.

Having explained the reasoning behind the practice, I would like to answer the two most common baptist objections.  The first – only those who have given a credible profession of faith are to be the recipients of baptism, and the second – there is no example or command in Scripture to baptize infants.

The first objection is easily countered when not simply looking for the words “baptize” and “infant” together in Scripture.  When we look at how God views children, there place in the covenant, generational succession, and the application and meaning of the covenant sign and seal, one should be compelled to adopt the paedobaptist position.  If you do not view children and their place in the covenant as such, and adopt the baptist view, you are compelled to see children as simply “vipers in diapers” who are unregenerate until they say some magical “sinner’s prayer.”  If this is the case, baptists would have to see their children as being no different than unbelievers.  This being the case, do all children of believers that die before making a credible profession of faith spend eternity in hell?  I would assume you would say they do not.  However you have to address the issue that there is no difference between unbelievers and children who have not expressed faith in Christ.  If you adopt an “age of accountability” as some baptists do to get around this issue, there are two major problems.  One being there is no such concept ever taught or mentioned in Scripture.  Second, this would mean that abortion has done more to increase the kingdom than the Church!  This would be absurd, however it is where the baptist position leads.

While all the children of believers are not saved, they are set a part.  Throughout the Old Testament the covenant sign (circumcision) was applied to children born into the covenant.  To a Jew, not applying the covenant sign to their children would be unthinkable.  The covenant sign was not given in the Old Testament on the basis of what the child had done, but on the basis of what God promised to do.  This is why Presbyterians continue to apply the covenant sign of the New Testament to their children.  It is a sign of what God promises to do for the future generations of His people.  Scripture testifies to the fact that the principle has not changed (Acts 2:38-39).  This is not to say that some of these children reject the Gospel.

Just imagine if Peter had told the Jewish converts to stop applying the covenant sign to their children after thousands of years of doing so.   We do not know when (or even if) God will grant a child faith.  John was regenerated in the womb (and according to the baptist line of reasoning should have been baptized as an infant), but not knowing when our children may be regenerated, we must take great care to raise them in future hope of what God has promised to do.

While there may be no explicit example in Scripture referring to an infant being baptized, if we take seriously the promises of the OT, and see the continuity between the OT and NT, we can easily see the continuation of the application of the covenant sign.  We do this with the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper also.  There is no explicit statement or example in Scripture of women partaking of the Lord’s Supper.  However, because they are in Christ, we can easily deduce that they are valid recipients of the sacrament.  There is also no explicit command or example in Scripture of a child who professes faith being baptized.  All of the examples are of adults and households.  I would doubt there is anyone who would withhold baptism from a child who professes faith and would like to be baptized.

There are also numerous examples of household baptisms (almost half of the accounts of baptisms in the NT).  Are we to conclude that there were no children in these households? (The following list was derived from an article by Gregg Strawbridge)

Non-Household Baptisms
3000 (men) at Pentecost (no household present)
Samaritans: (“both men and women”)
Ethiopian eunuch (no household)
Paul (no household)
Disciples of John (12 men) (no household present)
Simon the Sorcerer

Household Baptisms
Cornelius and household
Lydia and household
Philippian jailer and household
Crispus (and household)
Stephanas and household
Gaius (and household?)

It is a great blessing when a child grows up never knowing a day in which he did not know the Lord.  I find it sad that baptists see their children as nothing more than unbelievers.

One of the best and most succinct arguments for infant baptism that I have found is here.  Also, here is a great site that has many articles dealing with different aspects of this doctrine.

One of my favorite articles on the baptism of our children is by R.C. Sproul Jr.  It is a great pastoral treatment of the subject, simply asking, how can we legitimately pray with our children if we see them as outside of the covenant.  This is the question that no baptist can answer.  You can read the article here, and also another article along the same lines (which is where the title of the post is from) by Peter Leithart here.

Indeed, if there is any real evidence of the decline of Christianity in the West, the evidence resides precisely in the eagerness of so many professing Christians to employ the state to advance the Christian religion. That is, if Ellul’s theory is right, the evidence of the decline of Christianity resides not in the presence of other religions (including secularism) in our culture, but in the Judge Moores, the hand-wringing over “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, and the whining about the “war on Christmas.” If professing Christians believe our religion is advanced by the power of the state rather than by the power of the Spirit, by coercion rather than by example and moral suasion, then perhaps Christianity is indeed in decline. If we can no longer say, with the apostle Paul, “the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly,” then perhaps Christianity is indeed in significant decline. If we believe we need Christian presidents, legislators, and judges in order for our faith to advance, then we ourselves no longer believe in Christianity, and it has declined. Christianity does not rise or fall on the basis of governmental activity; it rises or falls on the basis of true ecclesiastical activity. What Christianity needs is competent ministers, not Christian judges, legislators, or executive officers.

I often wonder what the Church would look like if we truly understood and lived Paul’s words.  If the past is any indication, I would expect a harsh reaction and possibly strong persecution from even Western culture.  I fully believe that Gordan is correct in seeing the decline of Christianity correlate with the “Christianization” of culture.

The Decline of Christianity in the West? A Contrarian View by  T. David Gordon.  Read the full article here.

In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,—to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.

This flies in the face of the Dispensationalist’s “Golden Rule” of interpretation which states: “when the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense…”  (according to David Cooper).  My question to this was always, ‘Whose common sense?’  It’s sad to see the historic rules of interpretation jettisoned by most of the evangelical world for what amounts to philosophical pragmatism.  But as Augustine so aptly stated, “if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.”