There are no examples of children of believers growing up and then being baptized, either; but there are a number of household baptisms recorded. So your assertion simply assumes your own conclusion.
In fact, had the blood-letting sign of circumcision continued as the Covenant seal, the Covenantal model we would expect is precisely what we find in the New Testament – conversion of adults, followed by Covenant sealing of their households. We would not imagine that the Church – the “Community of belief” -- which had included infants in the sign of the Covenant for 2,000 years, would suddenly imagine that their children should not be included in the Covenant. And yet such a radical change in Covenantal practice would require a direct Scriptural command specifying the change – yet there is none. Scripture clearly informs us that the Covenantal sacrament has been changed from circumcision to baptism; but there is no instruction whatsoever that Covenant families are now supposed to exclude the infants which had already been included in the Covenant sacrament for some 2,000 years.
According to the Reformed view, however, the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIX, paragraph VI) Moreover (and this is vital), the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Spirit to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time. (ibid)< p>Thus, our concern in the administration of baptism is not to ascertain the regenerated status of the candidate, but simply to ascertain if, according to Scripture, he is lawfully to be regarded as a member of the covenant which baptism signifies and seals.
The Scriptures indicate that those of age from non-covenanted backgrounds join the covenant people when they embrace the Christ of the gospel and acknowledge Him as Lord. This was the same standard as found for inclusion in the Older Testament community of faith (though the sign was circumcision). Abraham believed first and was then circumcised. Isaac (as far as we know) was first circumcised and later believed. Once in the covenant, our children come with us. On this point see 1 Corinthians 7:14: “The unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” Since the children of one or two believing parents are “holy”, that is, set apart from the world unto God, they are entitled to the sign and seal of the covenant in terms of which that set-apartness has taken place. The hearts of Baptists are more covenantally oriented than their doctrine at this point. They cannot suppress the desire to bring their children to their God to receive covenant reassurance, but, since they deny the sacrament in principle to their children, they have invented the altogether unbiblical idea of “infant dedication.” The closest Scripture comes to such dedication is in the case of Hannah and Samuel. If Baptists would be consistent with that model, they should leave their children at the church after the ceremony when they go home!
Thus, we baptize infants, not because they have repented and believed, as is required of those of age, but simply because God commands us to administer the covenant sign and seal to our own. If the sheep are His, my friend, so are the lambs. Baptism means, “You belong to God.” I belong to God. My children belong to me. Therefore, my children belong to God. The family, not the individual, is the basic covenant unit. This cannot be emphasized too strongly. The powerful influence of Baptistic theology in North America has played no small part in fostering the terribly unbiblical individualism that characterizes our continent. It is this individualism that makes family baptism so offensive or, at best, puzzling to non-Reformed folk. But seeing that the promise is to us and our children, it is the most natural thing in the world for us. Remember that wicked Ham, solely in virtue of his relation to Noah, was taken on board the ark. Examples could easily be multiplied demonstrating the covenant status of children. That is why the household baptisms in the New Testament are just what we'd expect to find, on covenant principles.
I would remind you that baptism, being a covenant sign and seal, can just as well serve as a sacrament of the covenant curse as the covenant blessing. To those who were brought up in covenant homes, but who refuse to believe and obey, their baptism will be an eternal witness against them, as they will be judged in terms of it and what it suggests. Therefore, we do not raise our children in terms of presumptuousness, but rather to an organic covenant obedience. We urge them not to repent once, believe once, obey once, but to repent always, believe always, obey always. Thus they are taught to look always to God, whereas our Baptist friends not infrequently tend to comfort themselves in terms of their “decision for Christ,” which, sadly, often leaves them looking comfortlessly to themselves.
The Covenant is Visible and One.
No, you’re mistaken. The Bible does say “infants”. Not in Matthew 19 or Mark 10, no; but you neglected to read the parallel passage in Luke 18.
"Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe), and following this are the same words as in Matt. 19:14. The Greek word brephe means "infants"--children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior."
An infant cannot "come" to Him any more than an infant can control his bowels.
No, but the infants may be brought to Christ for His blessing, and our Lord Jesus rebuked His disciples for trying to prevent people from doing so.
In like manner, Presbyterians might find it odd that Baptist parents would withhold the Covenantal seal from their children until they are at least some few years old; but we can, in principle, respect their parental rights over their children. But we will certainly follow Jesus’ example and rebuke our Baptistic fellow-disciples if they try and argue that Presbyterians should not bring their infants to the Lord for His blessing. Of course we should. “For of such is the kingdom of God”.
In order for your argument to work, the verse would have to read "suffer the helpless infants to be brought to Me by their parents".
In Luke 18, this is precisely what the passage says.
If they can "come" to Jesus, that is, to understand and believe on Him, then they can be baptized. Anything else is a mockery of true baptism.
Balderdash. “And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” Covenanted parents are to bring their Covenant infants unto the Lord for His blessing, as they had for 2,000 years prior to the birth of Christ; and if there be any question of which ones truly belong to Him, they may have confidence that the Lord will know His own.
Baptism is NOT a sacrament intended for an atomistic, individual “celebration of one’s self”, any more than was circumcision. It is the sacrament by which the Church declares that it is staking its Covenantal Claim upon a soul whom the Church has Biblical reason to believe has been “set apart” unto God. We believe this of adults who make a credible profession of faith, even though some of them will turn out to be Tares; and we believe this of the Covenant children of Covenanted adults, even though some of them will turn out to be Tares.
The Bible clearly declares that Covenantal advantages extend to the children of believers (1 Corinthians 7: 14); yet the anabaptistic sacramental practice fails to recognize these advantages, and provides no Scriptural evidence whatsoever to support its claim that the Covenantal seal was suddenly withdrawn from infants who had been included therein for 2,000 years. By contrast, the Presbyterian sacramental practice acknowledges the Covenantal advantages of 1 Corinthians 7:14, recognizing that if God has ordained the Family as a covenantal unit, then it is Biblical to believe that He has included the Covenantal familial relationship in His Predestination of the Elect; the Presbyterian practice recognizes that “the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (Acts 2: 39); the Presbyterian practice proposes no radical alteration of Covenant theology (suddenly excluding infants who were formerly included) without any specific Scriptural command to do so; and the Presbyterian practice seamlessly incorporates the New Testamental example both of baptism by belief, and baptism by household.
For all your criticism of “baby-sprinklin’”, GWB, methinks you’ve missed the point of the sacrament in the first place. Baptism is the Church’s covenantal claim upon a soul – and the baptismal waters by which we anoint our Covenant infants, are the very waters by which we spit in Satan’s face and claim these children for our own. If the sheep belong to our King, so do the lambs.
It's just silly to "baptize" infants.
No more “silly” than circumcising infants.
The Covenant is Visible and One.
If we believe, with the Church of Rome, that the Church is in such a sense the institute of salvation that none are united to Christ save through the instrumentality of her ordinances, then we shall inevitably determine the proper subjects of her ordinances in one way. If, on the other hand, we believe, with the Protestant bodies, that only those already united to Christ have right within His house and to its privileges, we shall inevitably determine them in another way.
I read this far and stopped. Why? Because, although I'm no theologian, there are two falsehoods in the first paragraph.
First, belief in infant baptism does not mean that one must believe in the church's "ordinances" as the instrument of salvation, but instead means that one believes that it is through G*d's grace alone that we are saved. In other words, we are all sinners and there is nothing we can do is enough to earn the gift of salvation. Since there is nothing we can do to be worthy of salvation, why wait until you're older to be baptised? I understand that some churches feel differently, but belief in infant baptism is not a belief in the primacy of the church, but in the primacy of the Lord.
Second, many protestant denominations practice infant baptism. I'm not Catholic. I was born into the the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), spent my adolescence in the Presbyterian Church, attended the Espicopalian Church regularly in college and graduate school, and am now a Lutheran. Three out of four (and maybe all 4) practice infant baptism.
It is easy to craft a compelling argument, when you get to create the premises for it from whole cloth. With such a faulty foundation, I didn't feel the need to read it all.