Haeralis
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm very new to the issues at stake in the Baptism debate. Theologically, I have more knowledge of issues such as soteriology. Based off of what I know about the two different positions, I definitely agree more with the confessional Presbyterian position. I myself was baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian church.
I'm generally in the minority when I discuss this issue with fellow believers, and I am wondering what the best response is when they inevitably ask "well, if children of believers are automatically a part of the covenant by virtue of their parentage, then why do so many of them later leave the faith?" Though it is easy to respond by telling them that the same thing can happen to Baptists (when someone professes belief, is baptized, and later leaves the faith because they were never sincere), I am wondering what the best logical defense of the Presbyterian position is here. If the children of believers are included in the promise of God, then wouldn't this mean that they would all come to faith? Wouldn't inclusion in a promise / covenant mean that the external sign of Baptism would serve to seal the child's faith to come?
I'm generally in the minority when I discuss this issue with fellow believers, and I am wondering what the best response is when they inevitably ask "well, if children of believers are automatically a part of the covenant by virtue of their parentage, then why do so many of them later leave the faith?" Though it is easy to respond by telling them that the same thing can happen to Baptists (when someone professes belief, is baptized, and later leaves the faith because they were never sincere), I am wondering what the best logical defense of the Presbyterian position is here. If the children of believers are included in the promise of God, then wouldn't this mean that they would all come to faith? Wouldn't inclusion in a promise / covenant mean that the external sign of Baptism would serve to seal the child's faith to come?