This article attempts to argue that infant baptism is mentioned in the Bible by reference to the way Paul describes those who passed through the Red Sea as baptised into Moses (1 Corinthians 10:1-2).
It relies on some pretty woeful interpretation of Scripture. First, what Paul does is he takes the events of the Exodus and treats them metaphorically to build up analogical links between God’s people then and now. That is not the same as suggesting that the two “baptisms” were equivalent.
Secondly it seems that the Exodus proves too much for most paedobaptists. The people passing through not only go through baptism but they share the same “spiritual food”. This would require paedocommunion as well as Paedobaptism yet most paedobaptists will not go that far.
Thirdly from from Paul’s perspective, baptism in the red sea does not deliver on the things that Fesko claims. The people baptised into Moses are not brought fully through into the blessings of the covenant promises. They don’t make it into the land, they die in the wilderness.
This reminds us that Paul’s intention is not to use the Red Sea crossing to teach us about baptism. Rather it is to warn us of the danger of presuming that we are okay because we are externally connected in to God’s people. You can do all the things that suggest you are members of the Covenant and not be saved.
This reminds us that when in Acts 2, Paul talks about the promise being for you and your children, he wasn’t saying that children of believers are automatically saved. Though as has been pointed out so often, the paedobaptist use if Acts 2 relies on a particularly egregious example of mangling an out of context text.
Yet what we see with the use of 1 Corinthians 10 is another terrible example of a text being ripped out of context and mangled through obvious eisegesis.
In fact, my concern at this stage is not so much to attempt to argue the correct interpretation of the text. The correct interpretation of these texts is so obvious and has been pointed out for such a long time.
This leaves me concluding that it is unlikely that the proponents of this argument for Paedobaptism are unlikely to listen. Sadly it also means that we cannot just excuse the misinterpretation as ignorant.
Faithroots 