Infant Faith

The following is a response to the following article at Extreme Theology - Infant Faith


The chief source of our disagreement is when you say, "Baptism is a work of the law."
First, what makes you say this? One concern I have is that baptism is part of the New Covenant, and the reason I cling to the New Covenant is precisely because the only works of the law that matter in this covenant are the ones which Christ did on my behalf, which He imputes to me. If baptism is a work of the law, either Christ has fulfilled baptism for me, or it's got nothing to do with the New Covenant.
Second, you cannot point to a Scripture which explicitly makes your point ("baptism is a work of the law"). Rather, you deduce it by taking Scripture as a whole. Similarly, we deduce infant baptism by taking Scripture as a whole. (For my purposes here, there is no explicit "proof-text" for infant baptism.)
Grace through Faith is indeed imparted to the believer but it is given during the conversion and regeneration of the soul done by the power of God which precedes confessions of sins and repentance.
This is probably the most important point. When other churches split from Lutherans on this, talking about baptismal regeneration or baptizing infants or infant faith is a bit pointless. But we have significant common ground here. So the question is: "How or in what way does God's power operate?"
Lutherans teach, quite simply, that this "power of God" which effects conversion, regeneration, faith, etc. is delivered by the Holy Spirit through the Word and Sacraments. (Of course, what makes sacraments sacraments? The Word!) Now, if God's power is not delivered through the sacraments, Lutherans don't have a particularly good reason to baptize infants.

Scripture gives no instance of infant baptism nor is it a command of God without Scriptual evidence given to instances of infant baptism

But Christians do many things without explicit Scriptural direction. Broadcasting the Gospel via radio, for example. Baptizing people in tubs rather than in rivers. Using grape juice for the Lord's Supper. The list is endless. The primary issue is whether a practice is in keeping with Scripture, not necessarily whether it can be explicitly cited from Scripture. Yes?

So in regard to infant baptism it is not a issue of conversion of the child's soul being conducted by God but a matter of mankind falsly assuming a work of God has accured in the infant.

But we teach that baptism IS that work of God.

In conclusion infant baptism can mask a child's sinful nature in the eyes of their parents,plus giving him or her false assurance to belive Christ is indeed their Lord and Savior causing them tow alk in life all the way to death and eternal judgement in hell without them seeing a need to repent of their sins.

Infant baptism doesn't encourage parents to be lax in bringing up their children. Quite the opposite, really. I am sure that lazy parents use infant baptism as an excuse, and that this excuse might be validated by lazy pastors/priests, but here the culprit is of course the lazy parents and/or lazy pastor.

In this Lutherans and others run the risk of accepting false converts as brothers and sisters.

Not "in this." :) All churches at all times and in all places run equal risk of accepting false converts. At most, we judge others in the church by their public confession and public works. But we can't see their private behaviors, let alone their hearts. The difficulty is that it's pretty easy to fake it on the outside.