Originally Posted by john
I understand your line of reasoning, but I do not find that it satisfactorily answers my question. I am not saying that I believe oikos-baptism should be used, but only that I have not found a convincing argument that it should not be yet.
And that's what I thought I have been trying to address?? shrug IMHO, the NT record of household baptisms was expected since it was a practice inaugurated by God with Abraham and carried through as the record shows by the apostles/disciples. Thus, I too see no reason why it should NOT be continued since there is no explicit nor implicit command given in the NT after household baptisms were administered.

Originally Posted by John
First, I think we may not be 100% addressing the same issue. One issue is the age at which one can make a confession of faith. The other issue is the age at which a child no longer a subject of baptism due to his parents confession. We have two possibilities: A) the age at which a child can no longer be baptized due to his parents is the same age at which they show the maturity to make a valid confession of faith (but not that they will) and B) the age at which a child can no longer be baptized due to his parents is not necessarily equal to the same age at which they show they maturity to make a valid confession of faith.
For myself, the answer is very simple. If a child is capable of making a valid profession of faith then he/she cannot be baptized without it. What age that a valid profession can be made is that which is up for debate. I may be mistaken, but I have thought that many churches to be safe, perhaps, have set the age at 3. After the age of 3 infant baptism is no administered without a profession of faith. Doubtless, this age limit varies considerably in different denominations and congregations. Personally, I do not believe a 3 year old is capable of giving a valid profession of faith. And since salvation is not tied to baptism, denying baptism to young children does no harm nor does it endanger their eternal end.

Originally Posted by John
Back to the original point. Do you see the age which a child can not be baptized due to his parents is the same age at which a child shows the cognitive ability to make a valid confession? Or, should a church restrict paedo-baptism to say under 3-year-olds even though a 3-year old would not be expected to be able to make a confession of faith. Then, any non-baptized child whose parents entered the church when they were three would be barred from the church until that time at which they could make a valid confession.
I think we are on the same page here. grin And, I too have no definitive answer as to the "age" question which I stated above. But setting the cut-off for covenantal baptism at age at 3 seems reasonable. Thereafter, a child would have to make a valid profession of faith. Setting an age when a child could do that I think is nothing more than arbitrariness since God works in individuals as He wills. Also, a young child, let's say at 7 years old [i]may[/b] be able to make a valid profession of faith, but I suspect that this would be a rare exception.

Bottom line for me is that I don't see any hard and fast biblical rule that would determine ages. Prudence and general biblical guidelines in regard to professions of faith I think are the best policy. And, as far as the cut-off age for covenantal baptism, again I think 3 is fine.

In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]