Here's an opportunity for good iron-sharpening-iron discussion, in a spirit of gentleness and respect, regarding baptism.
If you're up for it, read this article by Vern Poythress: Indifferentism and Rigorism in the Church: With Implications for Baptizing Small Children (originally published in 1997 in the Westminster Theological Journal). It's a rapprochement of sorts between baptists and paedobaptists.
Poythress set forth four truths: (1) baptism marks the inception of life with Christ and the joining of the church; (2) credible profession of faith rather than infallible evidence of regeneration is required; (3) credible profession must be appropriate to the age and gifts of the person; (4) faith consists primarily in trust in Christ rather than intellectual mastery, precise verbal articulation of the truth, or self-conscious, autonomous decision-making.
If you agree, then it's very hard to avoid the conclusion that children--even young children--should be baptized.
Poythress also has a sequel to this article, Linking Small Children with Infants in the Theology of Baptizing. {link fixed} As with virtually everything Poythress pens, this article is filled with provocative points and insights. However, as a convinced credobaptist, my sense is that one would not come to these conclusions regarding the linkage of baptism with nascent infant faith unless one first believed in paedobaptism or was seeking validation for it.
But going back to the first article: what do you think? Are Poythress' arguments, especially concerning rigorism, persuasive? (I'd love for the 9Marks guys to weigh in, too!)
