Sunday, January 25, 2009

Paedobaptism: A Necessity For Weathering This Economic Crisis

As Barack Obama bumblingly delievers the Presidential Oath to America, we can expect the economic crisis to get far worse, since he will undoubtedly regulate the credit markets. If we are to boot him out of office, be it democratically or by divine intervention, we are going to have to return to our traditional, Biblical roots, which have always served us well. After all, no exclusively Christian government has ever had to weather a recession. To return to our Biblical roots, we will have to make sure that every child is under the grace of the LORD as soon as possible. This will increase the work force, increase the work ethics of our children, and increase the work force (as will abolishing abortion and throwing deadbeat illegals out of our country, both of which have strong connections). But how do we accomplish this? The answer is quite simple, assuming you aren't a Secularist Islamist.

Every Christian knows that the way to accept a child into a community is to baptize them. Much of Christendom takes the position that children should be baptized at an age where they can declare themselves 'born again'. I should remind the uninformed that this blasphemous viewpoint was concocted by the Anabaptists, who nowadays refuse to join our military due to their Pacifistic tendencies. (Ironically, they are worse than the Wiccans on this regard.) John Calvin makes the point that denying infant baptism is comparable to high treason:

The case for baptizing infants rests primarily on the claim that "the transition from the 'old' to the 'new' form of God's covenant . . . did not affect the principle of family solidarity in the covenant community"(Packer 214). This is just an elaborate way of saying the Old Testament promise to bless to the thousandth generation(Ex.20:6) applies to the Church as well. Calvin plainly affirms that the promise is the same for both covenants(Inst.4, 16, 4). Both covenant promises receive God's fatherly favour of forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Calvin argues that circumcision was the token by which the Jews were "assured of adoption as the people and household of God"(Inst.4, 16, 4). Similarly, the people of the Church are consecrated to God through baptism, "to be reckoned as his people"(Inst.4, 16, 4).

Calvin reminds us that the children of the Jews were called a holy seed. They had been made heirs to the covenant and distinguished from the children of the impious. For the same reason, Calvin argues, the children of Christians are considered holy; and by the apostle's testimony they differ from the unclean seed of idolators(1Cor.7:14). It naturally follows then, that if infants share the covenant status with their parent, it is fitting "to give them a sign of that status and of their place in the covenant community"(Packer 215).

Indeed, there is no justification for keeping babies from Christ, especially not in the Bible. Yet Anti-paedobaptists continue to mock us. The Anti-paedobaptist does not understand the heir to the covenant, but instead wishes to delay his ascension. Denying an infant a place in the community will often lead the infant to adopt values contrary to Christianity, such as Pacifism, Moral Relativism, and Existentialism. This will be disastrous for the individual AND the community.

Christendom must be purged of those who do not accept Paedobaptism. If it is not, then justifications for demonic activity will emit from several of the more deviant churches, and the economy will not be fixed. Economies require free markets, gold standards, and Protestant work ethics to avoid recessions and depressions. Non-Paedobaptists actively discourage the latter from developing; as such, the nitwit that favors delaying Baptism is the nitwit that wishes to starve the economy and promote the plans of Iraq Hussein Osama.


  1. you know, me being baptised at birth did not prevent me from turning out an atheist. One year of sunday school and a critical mind was all I needed to join sanity.

    For the baby , baptism is nothing but a mildly uncomfortable experience.

  2. French Student,

    Your parents were probably dedicating you to the Lord. It was their prayer that you grow up to be faithful to the Lord.

    They were just doing what they knew was best for you.

    Now, their prayer is that you will turn from your sin and accept Jesus into your heart and life and showing that you accept Him by being baptized once again. That would mean an awful lot to them.

    Today is your opportunity.

  3. Actually, my parents decided that they would give me enouh knowledge of christianity to choose knowing what I was choosing. One year of sunday school, two more in a religious choir, singing at the mass once a month. However, they did respect my choices once I was sufficiently informed to make them.

    But the point I was making was : baptising someone that is too young to know what it means, or in fact baptising someone against one's will, has strictly no effect.

    It is a meaningless gesture to the baby.

  4. baptising someone that is too young to know what it means ... has strictly no effect

    And that's what I was conveying when I said ... "It was their (your parents) prayer that you grow up to be faithful to the Lord."

    So they were doing the right thing, with all the right intentions in obedience to God.

    That you could not discern what they were doing to you, or if you would have been at the age of discernment you were still under the authority of their guidance. So they did all they could do.

    Now it's up to you, and if you wish to believe those who taught you in college about atheism, and despite your parents efforts, then that is okay for you, but you will have to realize that some day you will have to give an account of those decisions, and if you haven't dedicated your life to Jesus Christ you will be eternally separated from your parents due to that.

  5. Oh it was not in college, I was an atheist before I left primary school.