Bill, may I ask if it would it be a fair characterization to say that you believe baptism is rightly administered upon an outwardly "credible" profession of faith, as distinct from a necessarily "authentic" inward conversion?
Phil, well, since there is no way to determine an "authentic inward conversion" then yes, baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith.
Bill, that makes perfect sense to me when considering things from a credo perspective. The reason I asked is because, for the reason you note, I actually think it is more sensible and realistic than the all too common practice of re-baptizing persons following every bout of doubt or moment of clarity that they might experience.
Phil, to be honest, the view I hold to is a minority among Baptists. The majority of Baptists will continue to dunk 'em as long as they think they need it. I believe that is a travesty. I mean, it's not like any of us (credo or paedo) are able to ascertain the condition of the heart. Presbyterians baptize adult converts on the same criteria that Baptists do, a credible profession. We are simply acknowledging an outward indication of faith. Church discipline exists to deal with those who, once baptized, display actions that would repudiate their faith. But even if a person struggles with unbelief (after being baptized), is that an indication that they are not saved? Could they not be in a period of disobedience of which they could repent? I believe we cheapen the ordinance by applying it over and over again to the same person. Baptism's relevance is not in the sign but in the substance the sign represents. I think some Baptists fear that if they hold to this view that it will somehow threaten the rest of what they believe. That is an unnecessary fear, but I certainly understand why they would have it.
Bill,
Again, if the timing does not matter, I don't understand why you aren't a paedobaptist.
If there is a reasonable expectation that the children of believers will be saved (which there is), why not baptize them as infants?
I would love to hear a more in-depth defense of your minority view.
---------- Post added at 12:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 AM ----------
An attempted summary:
So, it appears that most would agree that a baptized child would NOT be more likely to be saved over a non-baptized child, if both were raised in Christian homes.
Baptism is a means of grace but only to the one possessing faith and thus faith is of prime importance.
It appears that Paedobaptists baptize their infants out of their perceived obedience and not to gain any advantage to the child (except for the advantage of committing themselves and the church to raise the child in a godly way.
Paedo baptists have an expectation that their children will believe, and this expectation is a valid one since the general rule of the proverbs and other Scriptures is that if we raise our children in the right way, they will not depart from it.
--
--
--
Is this a fair summary?