A Doctrinal Issue

Over the past year and a half, I have been studying theology and coming to conclusions about issues I had never previously thought much about. For example, two summers ago, after much confusion and switching back and forth between Calvinism and Arminianism I finally declared myself a firm Calvinist. More recently, I realized I believe in Covenant theology as opposed to Dispensational, meaning I believe in a basic continuity between the Old and New Testaments. (Actually I have always sort of had a Covenant theology mindset; I just never knew there was a term for it- or that there was even such a belief as Dispensationalism.) Because of these decisions, I began visiting a Presbyterian church whose views are basically the same as my own. I love the OPC and would love to become a member of one, but...there is one doctrinal issue I am having trouble with and that is infant baptism.

Growing up going to Baptist churches, I have always thought infant baptism was based solely on tradition and has no Biblical basis whatsoever. However, because of my new love for the OPC I decided to give the issue some real study. (I am trying to take it rather slowly, lest my desire to join the OPC renders me too easily won over!) I was surprised to find that infant baptism, if you believe in Covenant theology, actually makes perfect sense. In fact I find it really has as strong a Biblical basis, if not stronger, than believer's baptism, despite the fact that there is no mention in the Bible of infants being baptized. Let's briefly look at the two sides of the debate:

To the Credo-baptist, baptism is a symbol of being dead and resurrected with Christ. It is really just an outward expression of a person's faith. If this is the real meaning of baptism, then there would be no reason for baptizing infants. Obviously they are incapable of "getting saved" and it would be pointless to baptize them. Here is a verse which appears to prove this side:

"...having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through the faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Colossians 2:12. (Notice I did not start at the beginning of the sentence. This is significant, which we'll see in a bit.) Another proof for believer's baptism is in the great commission, in which the apostles are told to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Here we see they are to make disciples first, then baptize.

To the Paedo-baptist, baptism is not a symbol of faith, but is actually a covenental sign similar to the circumcision of the Old Testament. If you go through the Old Testament, you'll notice God's covenants with men always involve households, not individuals:

Genesis 17:7- "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your offspring after you."

God also mandated that a sign should accompany the covenant. This sign, namely circumcision, was not only for Abraham but for his children. The sign marked them as being under the covenant. Hopefully the children would grow up being faithful to the covenant, and not being subject to covenant curses. Here is another verse in which God declares His covenant to be with families rather than with individuals:

Jeremiah 32:38-39- "And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them."

In the New Testament, the Covenant was the same, but the sign was changed to batism. Let's go back to that passage in Colossians and add the beginning of the sentence:

"In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism..." Here we see the Bible clearly linking circumcision with baptism.

To someone who believes in a basic continuity between the Old and New Testaments, it makes no sense that children should be given the sign of the Covenant in the Old Testament, but not in the New. You would think if children were to stop being included in the Covenant sign, the Bible would state it somewhere. (Let me just stress that infant baptism does NOT mean the child is a believer, or even that he will become a believer, only that he is being included in the Covenant and will hopefully grow up to be faithful to it.) There is much, much more to the argument than what I have written, including a strong argument from church history, but if anyone is really seeking to understand infant baptism I would highly recommend exiting this blog immediately and finding a book. "Infant Baptism and the Silence of the New Testament" by Bryan Holstrom is a quick read but very insightful.

However, at this point in my life, I would still feel very uncomfortable coming straight out and saying, "I believe in infant baptism." I have been against it for so long that to change my mind about the issue is not easy. I CAN say, though, "I understand infant baptism." I no longer think it is a pointless tradition, and I cannot condemn anyone for practicing it.

And Now for Something Completely Different!

I have a sudden urge to update my poor blog, although due to schoolwork taking up so much of my mental strength I am not feeling up to writing anything profound at the moment. Therefore instead of posting my own writing I will post somebody else's! I have lately discovered my love for poetry, so here are a few beautiful poems:

"Oh! Snatched away in Beauty's Bloom!"

Oh! Snatched away in beauty's bloom,
On thee shall press no ponderous toom;
But on thy turf shall roses rear
Their leaves, the earliest of the year;
And the wild cypress wave in tender gloom.

And oft by yon blue gushing stream
Shall Sorrow lean her drooping head,
And feed deep thought with many a dream;
And lingering pause and lightly tread;
Fond wretch! As if her step disturbed the dead!

Away! ye know that tears are vain,
That death nor heeds nor hears distress:
Will this unteach us to complain?
Or make one mourner weep the less?
And thou- who tell'st me to forget,
Thou looks are wan, thine eyes are wet.
~Lord Byron

"To The Distant One"

And have I lost thee evermore,
Hast thou, oh fair one, from me flown?
Still in mine ear sounds, as of yore,
Thine every word, thine every tone.

As when at morn the wanderer's eye
Attempts to pierce the air in vain,
When, hidden in the azure sky,
The lark high o'er him chants his strain;

So do I cast my troubled gaze
Through bush, through forest, o'er the lea;
Thou art invoked by all my lays;
Oh, come then, loved one, back to me!
~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"To Celia"

Drink to me only with thine eyes and I will pledge with mine,
Or leave a kiss within the cup and I'll not ask for wine.
The thirst that from the soul doth rise doth ask a drink divine,
But might I of Jove's nectar sip, I would not change for thine.

I sent thee late a rosy wreath not so much honoring thee,
As giving it a hope that there it would not withered be.
But thou thereon didst only breath and sendst it back to me,
Since when it grows and smells, I swear, not of itself, but thee!
~Ben Johnson

And, of course, the famous "Bright Star"

Bright star, would I were steadfast as thou art-
Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night
And watching, with eternal lids apart,
Like nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,
The moving waters at their priestlike task
Of pure ablution round Earth's human shores
Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask
Of snow upon the mountains and the moors-
No-yet still steadfast, still unchangeable.
Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,
To feel forever its soft fall and swell,
Awake forever in a sweet unrest,
Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath.
And so live ever- or else swoon to death.
~John Keats

I am simply awed by how people can string words together in such pretty combinations. I suppose I should say, "how people COULD string words together in such pretty combinations." Nobody writes that way anymore. For example, here's a typical modern poem I found online:

Rain, rain go away
Because of you the pain will stay
Slit my throat, cut out my heart
Leave me here, tear it apart.

Poison tears stream down my face,
My heart beats at a steady pace
As I try to stand again;
Alone and standing in the rain...(I don't feel like typing the whole thing.)

What could possibly inspire someone to write something so unorigonal and mediocre? Well, whatever it is, it is probably the same thing that inspires practically EVERY songwriter of today to write mediocre music, and practically EVERY author of today to write mediocre books, and practically EVERY artist of today to produce worthless, mediocre "art." Nobody pours out their heart the way Lord Byron and Goethe did. Today all we hear about in poetry is vampires and slitting wrists and spiraling abysses of doom. Listening to people talk, you'd think Twilight and Highschool Musical were on the same level with Don Quixote and Great Expectations, or that Taylor Swift's love songs were as heartwrenching as "Tannhauser." Anyway, here I was just making I nice, lighthearted post about my favorite poetry and somehow it's lead me into my favorite speech about how our society has no regard for beauty or excellence whatsoever. I had better stop before I get too carried away. This is undoubtedly the worst post I have ever done, but at least now my blog will know I am still alive.