Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -- Ephesians 1:4-6"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
A Scriptural understanding of infant baptism is based on the premise that God ordained the elect and that group includes individuals from before the womb and into the grave.
It's fine for Christians to make a declaration of their faith as adults, but this declaration is not what redeems them. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world has already redeemed them.
If you find the covenant promises in Scripture, you find infants being baptized into His community of adopted sons.
Here's a fascinating essay by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon...
"A little bit about my journey in understanding how Covenant Theology is the overwhelming theme of God's Redemptive plan, and how God sanctified me further. A Baptist turns to be a theologian of Covenant Theology. How could such a thing happen?...
And a short essay on Calvin and infant baptism is found here...
The Bread of Life Discourse
I began following through on the implications of these discoveries. For instance, I turned to John’s gospel, Chapter 6, and I began studying more closely a very significant event that occurred early in his ministry near Capernaum where I happened to be just a few months ago with my family. A fascinating story there. You all know it, I think. In John 6, Jesus multiplied the loaves and gave the famous Bread of Life discourse. He multiplied the loaves and spoke of himself as being the Bread of Life.
What was the season of the year when that occurred? John 6, verse 4, tells us, “It was at the time of the Passover.” What a coincidence, right? Wrong! Jesus knew at that early Passover what he was to do at a later Passover, so he began to prepare his disciples to understand the full nature and the true meaning of his sacrificial death before it was to occur.
At the end, as the climax of this discourse, he announces to the multitudes, he says, “This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. I am the manna; I am the unleavened bread. I am the food for your souls, to lead you out of the spiritual Egypt, to deliver you in the true Passover, and the ultimate exodus — not just from Egypt into Caanan, but out of this world and across the Jordan River of death into the Promised Land of heaven. That’s what my sacrifice will accomplish and that’s what my Body and Blood will empower you to experience.”
“If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever... and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then disputed among themselves saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you,’” — I’m simply using a metaphor, a figure of speech? — No, he says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you have no life in you.” Now, first he says, “The bread which I give to you is my flesh,” and the Jews are offended because that sounds like cannibalism. It sounds like a forbidden practice according to the laws of Leviticus and so they protest, and what does Jesus say? If Jesus had meant his words to be taken exclusively in a figurative sense, as a teacher, he would have been morally obligated to clarify that point. And it would have been simple to do. He could have simply said, “Gentlemen, I simply mean receive me in faith.”
But no. In fact what he does is intensifies the scandalous nature of his remark. He says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh,” — and the Greek is very vivid, it’s he who “chews” — “my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died. For he who eats this bread will live forever.”
He doesn’t just say it once. He doesn’t just say it twice. Not even three times. Four times altogether, he tells the multitudes, “You have to eat my flesh and drink my blood.” Now you often hear Bible Christians asking others, “Are you born again?” And they quote from John 3, where Jesus said to Nicodemus, “You must be born again — or born from above.” But Jesus doesn’t say, “You have to eat my flesh and drink my blood just once.” He only said “born again” once. Here he says it four times.
Why is it we don’t hear Bible Christians going around and saying, “Have you eaten his flesh and have you consumed his blood?” A better question to ask is, “Why aren’t we going out and sharing with our friends and family that question? Have you received the glorious feast that Christ died to serve? Have you eaten the flesh and drunk the blood of the Son of Man, so that he could raise you up, so you can abide in him and he can belong to you?”
Back then, the disciples were really perplexed. Many of his disciples, when they heard it said, “This is a hard saying. Who can listen to it?” They don’t say, “Who can understand?” They say, “Who can even stand by and listen to it? It’s so offensive.” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, what? “Do you take offense at this?” — or, “I apologize, I’ll back off?” No. Our Lord does not compromise the truth for crowds. He says what he means and he means what he says. And he said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood because that’s the gift of himself. I’m not surprised to read then, in verse 66, “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.” The real, true, personal presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist was then and is now a mystery of faith. It is an incredible thing for us to believe that Jesus Christ’s real presence is there in the Holy Eucharist. Don’t take it for granted if you believe. Don’t say to yourself, “What’s wrong with them, why can’t they see? It’s so plain and obvious?” No, it’s not.
If you believe that Jesus Christ is truly and really present in the Holy Eucharist, then by all means, before this day is done, you thank God for that grace. Because you believe something which your eyes have not shown you, what your human reason has not demonstrated. You believe because God has spoken and God has empowered you to believe. But in every age, today as back then, there are going to be multitudes who follow Jesus, who see his miracles, who confess him to be their Lord.
Earlier in the chapter the multitudes were going to take Jesus by force and make him King. Here are people proclaiming the Lordship and the Kingship of Jesus who are shocked and horrified and offended at his language when it comes to preparing his disciples for the Eucharist. And what do they do? The people who are announcing his Kingship a few hours ago now turn away. Many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, “What have I done, guys? Hire me a public relations firm. I’ve got to beef up my act?” No. He didn’t say, “Hey, go out there. Catch them. Stop them. Bring them back. Tell them I only meant it metaphorically.”
“He said to the twelve, ‘Do you also wish to go away?’” Jesus is so committed to the truth which sets us free, to the truth which gives us life, that he would not compromise it when the numbers had dwindled down to twelve. And Simon Peter speaks up on behalf of the twelve, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life and we have believed and have come to know that you are the holy one of God.”
Notice what Simon Peter does not say. He does not say, “Hey, Jesus, come off it. What you said is plain. It’s obvious. It’s clear. Eucharistic realism — you know; it’s no problem at all. It’s the Real Presence of you in the Eucharist.” No way. Peter says, “To whom shall we go?” In other words, “Jesus to be real frank, we’ve been thinking about finding another Rabbi. Any advice? Any suggestions? To whom shall we go? Here’s our problem, Lord; you have the words of eternal life and we have believed and have come to know that you are the holy one of God.”
He doesn’t say, “Oh this lesson of yours, that’s duck soup. We have no problem comprehending it.” Obviously, Peter struggled, too. But sometimes it’s important for faith to reach the point where you don’t have to understand everything. All you have to do is know the One who does understand everything. You cling to Christ, even when you don’t understand his ways in your life. And that’s the faith of Peter — a mustard seed, perhaps. That’s the faith that held them together and that’s the faith that will hold us together as his disciples.
McMahon's central point, of the Anabaptists being a "new" theory devised in the 1700s, does not mesh with my studies. The Anabaptists were a problem during the time of Luther. And, as far as I can tell, contrary to what the Catholic Church would have us believe, there are indications of a "shadow" group of Christians outside the formal Church throughout history, who the Anabaptists (rightfully or wrongfully) declare they're associated with. The Baptists just didn't come along. The London Baptist Confession of Faith (1644) is older than the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646). Listen to your elders. :O)
I cannot in the least understand how immersion baptism relates to dispensationalism and I still remain unconvinced about infant baptism. Believe me, I would jump ship on this issue if I didn't think it squared with covenant theology. I think there is more of an argument to be made that this is a Catholic sacramental holdover that didn't command the attention of Luther and Calvin, much like Mary. There were larger issues at the time.
Likewise, infants are baptized into "future repentance and faith" and "the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit"(Inst.4, 16, 20). To refuse infants baptism then, according to Calvin, is to "rage openly at God's institution"(Inst.4, 16, 20).
This confuses me because we know that many, many infants who are baptized were never predestined by God to be saved. Of course, there are some who profess a false faith and are baptized, but that is solely on them. For the infant, no real presumption can be made, and no fault can be laid for "cheating". That's why it makes less sense to me. When someone is baptized in my church, there is celebration based on a fair presumption. I wouldn't know why to celebrate an infant's baptism, since we would have no idea whether the infant was ACTUALLY a child of God.