Inconsistent Covenantal or Reformed Baptist, Part 2

When someone who was baptized "falls away," doesn’t repent, and dies in his sins; Baptists say that his baptism was of no value to him - that it was a false baptism. We, the Reformed, say that his baptism will speak against him on the last day. Why then do we impose the ordeal of making profession of faith on our children? It is an ordeal because as one well known Christian writer has said, "…(I)n the name of high conversion standards, we teach them to doubt. Then, when they grow up and mature in the doubting that we have taught them, we point to that doubt as clear evidence that we did the right thing in keeping them away in the first place (emphasis his)." Why don’t we take our baptismal form seriously when it says that Christ incorporates us into the fellowship of His death and resurrection? More critically, why don’t we believe the Bible when it says that those who have been baptized into Christ "are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus;" "have put on Christ" (that is, belong to Christ); and are "Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise?" This is from Galatians! The inspired writing makes no qualification regarding the subjects of baptism. The text does not say, "...those who have made profession of faith in Christ Jesus..." nor does it say, "...those who have had a special revelation from God...." We are talking about union with Christ. Jesus declares clearly that there are two kinds of branches that are united to Him--fruitful and unfruitful. The unfruitful is no less united to Christ than the fruitful. The Husbandman knows what to do with unfruitful branches.

Part of the problem is that we have no practical sense of the “oath” of the covenant. According to P. Richard Flinn who wrote an essay entitled Baptism, Redemptive History, and Eschatology: “Baptism is a solemn religious oath and is of deep significance and eternal power.” It is “objective in the sense of having meaning and significance apart from the response and heart condition of the recipient. It is deeply meaningful to the church and to the King of the Church, and it is inevitably of eternal significance to the one who receives the sign.” Therefore, baptism is not always and only positive in the sense that good always proceeds from it or is necessarily associated with it. “…(B)aptism is both efficacious and powerful even apart from the faith of the recipient. But, we hasten to add, baptism is efficacious for salvation only through faith in the promises proclaimed in baptism." Unbelief in given promises constitutes the unpardonable sin.

Is our practice of requiring little children to reach a relatively high level of intellectual comprehension what Paul had in mind when he wrote, But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup (1 Cor. 11:28)? Could Jesus be as displeased with our church as he was with the disciples in Mark 10:14-15? (But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.)