A Strained view of Baptism

David Strain (aka The Strain-train), over at his blog Letters from Mississippi, gives a clear and concise statement of why he is a paedo-baptist.

In his first post, he gives thirteen reasons why he is not a Baptist:

1. The continuity of the Old and New Covenants in redemptive history

2. The continuity of the way of salvation in the Old and New Covenants

3. The continuity of the people of God in the Old and New Covenants

4. The continuity of the spiritual reality signified in the sacraments of the Old and New Covenants

5. The consequent continuity in the function of the Old and New Covenant sacramental signs

6. The enlarging rather than narrowing of the scope of New Covenant membership

7. Household baptisms imply that corporate solidarity rather than individualism is operative in the New Covenant as in the Old

8. The symbolism of infant baptism is most consistent with the sovereignty of God in salvation

9. The meaning of the baptizo word-group cannot be narrowed to mean ‘dip or immerse’ only.

10. The spiritual reality (the work of the Spirit in new birth, cleansing, and filling) is always poured out or sprinkled. We are not dipped into the Spirit.

11. None of the biblical examples of baptism require immersion and several make immersion impossible.

12. The history of the church affirms that the baptism of the infants of believers is the normal pattern, and the ancient practise of the church catholic

13. In keeping with 12, the practise of infant baptism is the uniform position of the Reformed Confessions (3 Forms of Unity, Westminster Standards).

And he then fleshes those reasons out in the following installments, found here, here, here, here, here and here.