More than a Feeling, Part 2

We studied infant baptism in my Theology of John Wesley class this semester. We read an excellent lecture and essay on the topic, which I believe is the best treatment of infant baptism I've ever read.

One way to think about infant baptism is to see it as the circumcision of the new covenant. Now, we all know that circumcision is not required to be a Christian, Paul has made that argument very clear. What I mean is that circumcision was also a way of being initiated and identified as one of God's people. It is analogous to baptism in that way. Here is how I put it in a response I wrote for my class:

The Bible is filled with analogous relationships. The almost-sacrifice of Isaac foreshadows the sacrifice of Jesus, the Israelites deliverance from Egypt and desert wanderings foreshadow the life, baptism, and ministry of Jesus, David as King is the type that Jesus ultimately fulfills…I could go on and on. Therefore, the argument that baptism in the NT is like circumcision in the OT makes perfect sense. Circumcision was a part of the original covenant with Abraham so that God’s people might have an outward sign of the inward grace of the covenant. Once the church was established and the new covenant replaced the old covenant, baptism became the new outward sign of the inward grace, the one thing that marked God’s people as different in the world. What must be remembered when it comes to infant baptism is that it is a sign that the child is being initiated in to the community, to be raised by the community, in the common faith. Infant baptism is meant to be followed up by teaching from the community about the faith so that the child can one day receive faith on his/her own, at which time the baptism covenant will be confirmed.

I'm open to your thoughts. Feel free to leave comments if you like.