Infant baptism isn’t a form of comfort for the grieving

Yesterday I responded to one specific argument for reconsidering infant baptism.  Today, I want to deal with another from this article.  Like Steve Kneale,  I don’t presume that Joe Barnard is seeking to pick fights and like Steve I am not looking for one. However, I was deeply concerned by the emotional appeal to “what about children who die young without professing” that I would plead with Joe to remove it.  As Steve has helpfully shown, the point is a red herring in that we place the weight of assurance on the presence of baptism.  There are many people who don’t get the chance to be baptised.  My own grandfather, like the thief on the Cross gave his life to Jesus on his deathbed.  At least with my grandfather, the profession was clear cut. However, I know of several other examples where there wasn’t the opportunity to hear a clear cut profession but I don’t think people are being sentimental when they identify clues that a person’s heart was changing.

Now, in those circumstances, can we say for certain that the person was saved?  We cannot.  However, whilst we all seek comfort when we lose a loved one, the purpose of Chrisian assurance is not to help loved ones feel better in their grief.  All that baptism of an infant does then is restate the particular theology of those doing the baptism concerning who they would include in the covenant.  It doesn’t give us assurance because it remains a human verdict.

Now, here is the crux of the matter.  It seems to me that what we are trying to do here is to offer some form of comfort to the grieving parents in the church. But what this presumes to do is to prefer a person on the basis of their parentage.  What about where a child’s parents are not believers?  What do you say to the parents? Grandparents, siblings or friends of that child? What about cases where a child is adopted into a family? Are they treated different to a birth child.  What does what we say here tell us about our view of God and others?

So, whilst I might agree to disagree with Joe on the other 4 points, I hope that in this case, he will reconsider the use of this faulty, emotive argument.