I would like to point out that what is happening here is that an
untold number of ancillary issues have completely obscured the original query, which (unfortunately) was bound to create this confusion. The original Q. has to do with Rom.4:11, but now the questions relate to Ps.22:9, and whether or not infants can have faith. Will agreeing or disagreeing on this other question have any bearing on our understanding of Rom.4:11?
I would say psalm 22:9 is a much better verse of the issue of infant baptism though in view of all of Scripture I am still unconvinced. But a few thoughts about psalm 22:9?
1) Does this transfer universally? Meaning just because David said this does that mean applies to all infants? Was it a special event?
Firstly, as Todd points out, paedobaptists aren't asking the same sorts of questions (like, "is this child exercising faith or not?") that the Baptist asks. So far as it has ANY bearing on the issue, all we need to affirm is that the Scriptures tell us that infants CAN have faith, so to claim that baptism MUSN'T be given to infant because they CANNOT believe is simply false.
Second, David is speaking as a covenant member, and he's speaking as a believer. He's speaking as someone who (obviously) can't remember ever NOT believing in the truth he was taught from the moment he came into the world. He no more disbelieves in Jehovah and Israelitish religion than he disbelieves in his mother's affection, that 2+2=4, or any other truth taught him in his youth. He can have all that as background, even without the Spirit's inspiration to confirm.
Clearly, there are covenant members who are not converted as David was, and for exhibit A, I present Jacob. I don't believe Jacob is positively converted until the night he dreams of the ladder, on his flight for his life from Canaan. Nicodemus, Zaccheus--these are men who give evidence of a later conversion-experience. However, we actually DON'T KNOW the secrets of any such men's devotions or rebellions.
David's must have been an idyllic childhood, in many respects. He experienced the sweet effects of the Spirit's work when only a baby, and his parents probably used many ordinary, gracious means to effect David for righteousness (from the human standpoint). And what right do we have to "calculate" the probability of similar circumstances here, there, and everywhere in Israel? We don't. And we don't need to. All we need is to know that God intervenes in infancy, sometimes; or simply begins to work there, and different elect children turn the corner at different times.
2) This is a psalm is prophecy about Christ sufferings. Is it explaining Christ at the birth of His incarnation or are parts describing David and others Christ? I know some would say how can Christ "trust" in God. But we see that Christ trusted the father all through His incarnation.
Ps.71:5-6 says pretty much the same thing, only from the standpoint of an old man ,vv9,18. But besides, it is improper to simply rip Ps.22 away from David's personal situation and statement of faith. David understood that his own experiences were typological. He understood that he was a representative man, a federal man, a covenant man, a "publick person," a "son of man" (Ps.8:4). He was an anointed-figure.
So that, the proper way to understand Ps.22 and other Messianic texts, when they have the kind of "autobiographical" quality of Ps.22, is not to parse the verses to see which belong to David, and which to Jesus--but to recognize that David himself is a type of Christ. In any case, only the rationalistic
a priori states that
we know an infant "can't" trust Christ, therefore this or other texts that seem to say they "can" must betake another explanation.
But, bottom line is: paedobaptists do not baptize on the presumptive ground (basis) of a present-faith for anyone. We don't baptize because people "may" have faith, adults or infants. We baptize adult converts who profess faith, and children of such baptized parents, because that's the command we reason from Scripture. Both conditions are observable criteria.
And we believe that a regularly conducted baptism does in fact baptize these people. We don't believe that, if the heart wasn't true, that baptism didn't take place (and the action must thus be repeated). Which is final proof that "faith" wasn't a ground of baptism to begin with. But we do believe that baptism
belongs only to people who have faith; that is, a person who believes (even if it is later on) in what baptism signifies has got the blessing of the thing. Hence, that connection to circumcision that was earlier spoken of.
3) Trust does not have to mean faith. Bible says, Faith comes through hearing the Word. How could that be here? Are there exceptions?
Do you believe that (some) dying infants go to heaven? How about the mentally handicapped? These are people "incapable" of intellectually apprehending the ordinary, verbal gospel witness. Don't they need faith in Jesus to go to heaven? "Without faith, it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God" Heb.11:6.
So, I propose that a) not all saving faith is intellectual; and b) God is able (miraculously) to make himself apprehensible to the faith he creates in the soul that is (to our perceptions) invisible. Faith, in the classic definition, is composed of three parts: knowledge, assent, and trust. The three all go together, and the first two without the last do not save! "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!" Jas.2:19. In other words, the most significant aspect of faith is TRUST.
And, frankly, having a baby as you do (if that's your pic as avatar), you know quite well the sort of trusty-faith your child has in its mother. It is almost the purest faith there is, and it has very little of the "intellectual," an aspect you expect (and hope) to come to view as time goes by. Elect babies, going to heaven, have
nothing but trust in the arms of Jesus that receive them. They spend the rest of eternity in a perfection of "growing in the grace and
knowledge of our Lord and Savior" 2Pet.3:18.
I would say if we did not have the rest of the Bible and just this chapter of Scripture I would concede infant baptism. Having said this I do not mean to demean those who believe in paedobaptistim. We are brothers and sisters in Christ.
With all due respect, I would call what you offer here (by way of admittedly real and generous statement) a big mistake. Because, what you would be embracing would not be infant-baptism as it is taught, believed, confessed and practiced in our churches. It would be an embrace of infant-baptism on Credo-Baptist principles, which are not able to bear the weight of the paedobaptist theology, piety, and practice.
