It's not that I have
writer's block. It's more along the lines of biting off more than I can chew. The topic (the Abrahamic covenant and how it relates to infant baptism) is too big, more fundamental than I can treat in a "dash off a quick essay" burst of inspiration. Rest assured that I have been meditating on this a lot. I am sure that Abraham would have been more than a little put out had Isaac said, "You know dad, that circumcision bit was alright for you to apply to your child, but for me and my house, I think I'll pass". That's where I am. It's more than grandfather's rights. It is God's idea, not mine.

The funny thing is that I have been going backwards - from infant baptism to the Abrahamic covenant. Now I propose to go backwards again. I am proposing to back up out of necessity. The need came up because twice in this discussion I was asked to produce a scripture proof of infant baptism. I was subjected to the clever red-herring "That's what we have so often treasured in the reformers, their insistence that the word is pre-eminent. There must be a scripture to prove your point. Give me a single scripture that says that we should baptize infants."

I think that argument is a misuse of sola scriptura. The sola scriptura principle was the reformer's weapon that combatted the Roman Catholic insistence that the church was authoritative over scripture, claiming that the church and especially its leaders who maintain apostolic succession from the first (i.e. Peter) were the authors of scripture.

I mentioned that I am lousy at theological ping-pong. That red-herring slam won a point for my opponent. But I am here to assert that inspite of the absence of a single scripture that says "you must baptize your infant children", it is nevertheless God's will for his church. That point, however, I am not going to push any further right at the moment. Rather, I want to address the principle that a single clear scripture must exist in the Bible before we as believers can accept a doctrine.

It's not at all hard really. What follows is a list (an incomplete list) of doctrines or in a few cases, practices, that orthodox Christians hold to without there being a single verse that backs up the belief.
1) The Trinity. Without a single verse to back this belief up, the church has unequivocally stated that unless you hold to the trinity, you are not a Christian. Ask yourself how we get away with this.

2) A second, like unto the first, - Jesus is God. Of course, many verses come close to explicitly stating this but we're not playing horseshoes.

3) Orthodoxy has stated for centuries that Jesus, in the flesh, was a single person with two natures. Not two persons with two natures, or a single person with one nature, etc. You may think that this distinction is not important, but I would counter that knowing Jesus includes knowing about Jesus.

4) Two wills of God. One will which relates to his moral demands of humans, and his sovereign will that controls every event that transpires inside and outside time and space. (See number 3)

5) Any eschatology system that you care to bring up. Especially those systems that appear to counter actual verses brought out by those pre-mil/dispensational types. A-mil types defend their position with what must seem to the pre-mil guys as having no visible means of support.

6) Just for fun, on what scriptural basis do we allow women to a) partake of communion - since, Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code notwithstanding, only men were present at the initial supper b) preach from a pulpit c) be an elder or deacon.

7) On what scriptural basis do we take the liberty to change scripture where it suits us - i.e. gender inclusivity issues.

What's the point? The point is more than just demonstrating that the demand for a single scripture to prove the doctrine of infant baptism fails. The point goes beyond a mere 'heads up' that handling this issue will take a little work i.e. you won't get your wish that a nice little verse, heretofore un-noticed, will pop up and solve the dilemma or that the lack of that single verse proves the opposite. The point really is two questions, 1) what is the Bible, 2) how do you read it?

There, I did it again. I bit off more than I can chew. But I am quite sure that to get to the bottom of infant baptism, to get to the bottom of the Abrahamic Covenant, you have to get to the bottom of your philosophy or presuppositions of what the Bible is and how you read it?

I am talking about more than just recommending that you read Gordon Fee's Read the Bible for All its Worth. Although that wouldn't be a bad idea.

I am amassing a pile of unfinished business. This wouldn't happen if I was more disciplined.