Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[atpollard]

Some thoughts on ‘anti-Paedobaptism’:

Much has been made about the “age of X” and the inability to come up with a definitive age to insert in the “X” ... by both sides. However, I believe that the “age of X” is entirely appropriate. There is no definitive age, but rather an age appropriate for each individual.

Let us begin with a discussion of adult conversions to Christ. From scripture, we know that the saved were ‘foreknown’ by God from before the foundation of the world. They were also predestined. And yet (at least in my case) I was not ‘called’ and ‘drawn’ from birth. There was a time when I was dead in sin and living in the world as an enemy of the God who had fore-loved me. So there is an age when God knocked on the door and drew me to Jesus and I was transformed. Is there a specific age when God draws all sinners to himself? Is there a specific age when all of the saints hear and respond in God given faith? NO. Some are called to faith while still quite young, others as adults and some when they are old. Thus among adults coming to faith (all chosen by God before the creation of the world) there is an age of X. Variable, personal and selected by God.

In Paedobaptism, we have been told and read in the statements of the churches that the parent stands in and supplies the faith for the baptism of the infant who cannot proclaim their own faith. Credobaptists reject the notion that anyone can stand in and offer their faith for the baptism of another. We may be wrong, but no convincing proof from scripture has been presented in half a millennium, however the concept is not hard to understand. Since God demonstrably draws adults to faith at age X, it does not seem unreasonable to assume that God would also draw children to Christ and grant them faith at age X ... a unique age for each individual.

Thus for a Credobaptist, age X is whatever age a person can make a credible confession of faith and thus fulfill the command to “believe and be baptized” or “make disciples and baptize” or “repent and be baptized”. However, no person can believe for another person’s salvation ... and baptism is the ordinance of salvation.

 

[Albion]

Some thoughts on ‘anti-Paedobaptism’:

Much has been made about the “age of X” and the inability to come up with a definitive age to insert in the “X” ... by both sides. However, I believe that the “age of X” is entirely appropriate. There is no definitive age, but rather an age appropriate for each individual.

Then there is no "age of accountability."

The term means that there is a standard established for all which represents the age at which a human being is thought capable of properly receiving the sacrament.

If you instead unilaterally use the term to describe all sorts of other things, such as the time at which we are going to let people marry or the age at which they are deemed capable of driving a car, you are not talking about the topic of this thread.

 

[MennoSota]

Then there is no "age of accountability."

The term means that there is a standard established for all which represents the age at which a human being is thought capable of properly receiving the sacrament.

If you instead unilaterally use the term to describe all sorts of other things, such as the time at which we are going to let people marry or the age at which they are deemed capable of driving a car, you are not talking about the topic of this thread.

Did atpollard use the term "age of accountability?" I didn't see it.
Do you agree that although God had chosen outside of time, the moment that the human is adopted is an actual point within time?

 

[atpollard]

Then there is no "age of accountability."

The term means that there is a standard established for all which represents the age at which a human being is thought capable of properly receiving the sacrament.

If you instead unilaterally use the term to describe all sorts of other things, such as the time at which we are going to let people marry or the age at which they are deemed capable of driving a car, you are not talking about the topic of this thread.

We are talking about BAPTISM, which is the ordinance/sacrament related to salvation and being a member of the church. Is there a minimum age to be a member of your church and serve on a board, or teach the children or work in the office? I have no idea for Anglicans. For Presbyterians, church membership includes voting on hiring a new pastor and I doubt baptized infants cast a vote, so they have some way to establish membership and it is linked to age. For Credobaptist churches, baptism is generally required to partake of communion. (Again I have no idea how Anglicans handle communion, but you probably do not serve infants).

So there is a variable age of accountability because there are different churches with different traditions and guidelines, but the goal is the same.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

So there is an age when God knocked on the door and drew me to Jesus and I was transformed.

1. Is personal experience of an individual the norm for dogma? Because there was NEVER a time when I did not have faith, NEVER a time when I did not love Jesus. But then I was baptized within one minute of my physical birth. And of course, John the Baptist was given faith before he was physically born.

2. Why would God be unable to work until the receiver reaches a certain age? What is it about God that is rendered impotent by the age of a person?

Is there a specific age when God draws all sinners to himself? Is their a specific age when all of the saints hear and respond in God given faith? NO. Some are called to faith while still quite young, others as adults and some when they are old. Thus among adults coming to faith (all chosen by God before the creation of the world) there is an age of X. Variable, personal and selected by God.

And of course, whether the receiver is one minute old (as was I) or still in the womb (as was John the Baptist) or some older age (as evidently you were), 100% of this is the work of God. The receiver contributed NOTHING. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. Your being a child..... me being a baby.... John not yet being born.... has nothing to do with anything because none of us contributed, earned, merited or did ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. Not a thing. No thoughts, no intellect, no works, nothing. GOD is the Author and Lord and GIVER of life (as we all declare every time we share the ancient Creed..... and declared at the Ecumencial Council of Orange that Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Reformed and Anglicans all accept). If one has faith, there is ONE and ONLY ONE exclusive, singular, sole, individual reason - God GAVE it to them. So, tell me, where is this age requirement that Anabaptists are so obsessed about, the centerpiece of their whole dogma on this point, the entire issue of ANTI-PAEDObaptism? The invention in 1523 of the Anbaptists of Anti-PAEDObaptism/Age of Accountability/Credobaptism all flowed singularly from their radical synergism (not from any Scripture) because it's virtually necessitated by radical synergism.... if we accept their heresy in justification, we pretty much have to buy into their inventions here. Therefore, when a radical synergist also embraces the Anabaptists inventions in Baptism - that makes sense to me, and it's hard to discuss this with them because it's entirely intertwined and dependent upon their radical synergism.

In Paedobaptism, we have been told and read in the statements of the churches that the parent stands in and supplies the faith for the baptism of the infant who cannot proclaim their own faith.

You misunderstand the traditional/orthodox view (perhaps understandably)....


This has been addressed so very many times in these threads....


To quote YOU, there are a number of CO-requisites , a point you use to stress but I realize have abandoned. The traditional baptism view embraces ALL of these (it's the Anabaptist who don't mention them at Baptism). The orthodox/traditional view doesn't ignore confession or repentance or any of the many other requisites (unlike the Anbaptists). We embrace them. Even mention some of them at the traditional order of service. IMO, the reason you abandoned your earlier emphasis on CO-reqisites is that in doing so, you are supporting the traditional/orthodox view. The Anabaptist point is entirely, wholly, exclusively about the necessity for God that there be a very specific, step-by-step, chronological SEQUENCE to all these things (or God is rendered impotent to bless), it's all about PRE-requisites. And age is KEY to it all because one must be old enough to do their own part in the saving of themselves, thus the whole age issue.


Theologically, it's not that parents and sponsors are fulfilling the mandate FOR the child (although I agree the wording of the ceremony seems like it). You yourself can confirm this by looking at any "order of service for baptism in an emergency." Here is what my Explanation of the Small Catechism says on page 216, "In urgent cases, any Christian may administer Holy Baptism. Take water and apply it saying, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." NOTHING about anyone confessing anything because theologically, the orthodox/traditional view does not consider it essential to the Sacrament... it is a CO-requisite of God but not a PRE-requisite to Baptism. If we're dealing with the usual case, a healthy child being baptized in church during worship, there's much about training up the child, bringing the child to regular Sunday worship, teaching them the Ten Commandments and the Creed, etc. etc. because as YOU put it, there are CO-requisites. Typically, where possible, it is not to be isolated from the community of the church (the way Anabaptists often do) it is not to be isolated from regular Sunday worship, Christian education, repentance, confession and so on. The traditional/orthodox view sees Baptism in the CONTEXT of the family and the church, embracing the CO-requisites (that you once stressed but then abandoned).


So, yes, the whole issue for the Anabaptist/Baptist is this min. AGE mandate (because radical synergists have to argue some are just inapt to do what they they to do to save themselves); it's a replacement of the CO-requisite point you once made with a very prescribed, step-by-step, chronological sequence of things that the RECEIVER must obey and perform or they cannot save themselves. All the hoops must be jumped through in a certain order (and this jumping is done individually - an abandonment of family, church, community). Of course, the Anabaptists have no Scriptures that remotely state this, but the 1523 invention was not because of Scripture but because of radical synergism.

Since God demonstrably draws adults to faith at age X

I reject your entire premise.

I believe God is able to give faith to souls prior to adulthood. He did me. He did John the Baptist

I'll say again, it is just this sort of statement that SHOCKS me coming from a Reformed Christian..... of all people!!!!!! It's usually Calvinists who speak of the soverignty of God, of the strong monergism of God. And yet, here again (as I've witnessed many times from Reformed Baptists), this "God cannot give faith to any until they are adults (or at least not infants)" Sorry, my respected friend, I just see that as a fundamental rejection of monergism and God's soverignty. Sure, it flows naturally (almost by necessity) from radical synergism, but how it can exist along side of the (correct) soteriology of Calvinism .... well, leaves me scratching my head in pure amazement.

it does not seem unreasonable to assume that God would also draw children to Christ and grant them faith at age X ... a unique age for each individual.

Okay..... but if God did that for John the Baptist while still in the womb..... and me within minutes of my premature emergency C-Section.... why CANNOT He do that for those who are not yet adults? Why this dogmatic (sic) point that God CANNOT give faith to one younger than X? Remember: Anti-PAEDObaptism - Credobaptism - Age of Accountability are all intertwined and all inventions of the Anabaptists and all flowing from radical synergism.

age X is whatever age a person can make a credible confession of faith

Then the theology of the Reformed Baptist is that God cannot give faith until the receiver is old enough (and physically able enough) to give a "credible confession of faith." God's "monergism" and "sovereignty" are absolutely subject to a person's ABILITY and likely PERFORMANCE of pronouncing their faith in Jesus. I think I disagree with that theology.

fulfill the command to “believe and be baptized” or “make disciples and baptize” or “repent and be baptized”. However, no person can believe for another person’s salvation ... and baptism is the ordinance of salvation.

IMO, so we not only have synergistic theology (God is subject to the receiver at least being physically ABLE to make a "credible pronounement") but also really, really bad grammar LOL.....

Once again, the koine Greek word "kai" does not remotely mandate (or even remotely imply) chronological sequence. Your position not only seems to reject monergism and God's sovereignty but clearly mandates forcing the word "kai" to mean something we all know it does not in one of the most radical examples of eisegesis ever seen in Christianity. Perhaps, friend, you realized this and thus why you abandoned your "CO-requisites" argument.




- Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

We are talking about BAPTISM

Exactly--or at least that is what we are supposed to be talking about. Not the age at which someone might make a personal commitment to Christ or have a "born again" experience, or fully comprehend good and evil, or anything else of that sort coming years after they were baptized.

And if we DO talk about it--Baptism--there is no age of accountability. Easy enough to understand, isn't it?

 

[Albion]

So there is a variable age of accountability because there are different churches with different traditions and guidelines, but the goal is the same.

If infants are baptized, there are no "different traditions and guidelines."

 

[atpollard]

The fact that most of my post is ignored to respond to a single sentence with an irrelevant comment indicates that people are being deliberately obtuse.
Enjoy your straw man.

 

[Josiah]

The fact that most of my post is ignored to respond to a single sentence with an irrelevant comment indicates that people are being deliberately obtuse.

I think people can read post 285 (just above on this page) and see the reality for themselves.... I don't think you are being fair, Arthur.... And they can see for themselves posts 258, 244, 246, etc. for still more examples....


Friend, if you want to exit the discussion, that's entirely up to you and perfectly acceptable... but I think there has been great effort (and considerable time) spent TRYING to discuss this with you.



- Josiah




.

 

[meluckycharms]

Then there is no "age of accountability."

The term means that there is a standard established for all which represents the age at which a human being is thought capable of properly receiving the sacrament.

If you instead unilaterally use the term to describe all sorts of other things, such as the time at which we are going to let people marry or the age at which they are deemed capable of driving a car, you are not talking about the topic of this thread.

For some, it is believed that the age of accountability is the moment a child willfully and deliberately sins knowing the consequences. That age is subjective to the individual. Saying that the age of accountability is X is no different that saying that (pardon my gross example) all girls will receive their first period at age X. I do believe that there is an age of accountability, however, only God and the individual knows exactly when and where that taken place. Thus, age of accountability is not necessarily required to establish for baptismal purposes. But rather to establish that infant baptism is unnessary to save the soul of the infant. Lest we fall into concluding that stillborn children or dead unbaptized babies are in hell.

 

[Albion]

For some, it is believed that the age of accountability is the moment a child willfully and deliberately sins knowing the consequences.

OK, but that isn't a test applied by the paedobaptist churches, obviously. And the posts lately have been from other people trying to say that paedobaptists do believe in an age of accountability for the reception of Baptism when, in reality, they do not.

 

[Josiah]

For some, it is believed that the age of accountability is the moment a child willfully and deliberately sins knowing the consequences. That age is subjective to the individual. Saying that the age of accountability is X is no different that saying that (pardon my gross example) all girls will receive their first period at age X. I do believe that there is an age of accountability, however, only God and the individual knows exactly when and where that taken place. Thus, age of accountability is not necessarily required to establish for baptismal purposes. But rather to establish that infant baptism is unnessary to save the soul of the infant. Lest we fall into concluding that stillborn children or dead unbaptized babies are in hell.

Respectfully, I disagree a bit....

The "Age of Accountability" was invented in 1523 by exactly the same Anabaptists who invented Anti-PAEDObaptism and Credobaptism. And these entirely intertwined inventions are simply an application of their radical synergism. Their soteriology raises the issue of what about those who are UNABLE to do their part in the salvation of themselves (either because of age, IQ or whatever)? Their answer: While it MAY be that those under that age of X are still sinful and sin (this point varies RADICALLY among Anabaptists/Baptists), regardless - they aren't accountable for it, God just winks at it and lets it go. Why? Because they are unable to do anything about their fallen state since they are unable to perform the works and deeds they must to do their part in the saving of themselves. This concept is absent in orthodox/traditional theology. Which is why there is no age (for this OR ANYTHING) stated anywhere in the Lutheran Catechism or Small Catechism, not in any of the 2,865 points of the Catholic Catechism, not anywhere in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Anglicanism. The whole point of the Anabaptist/Baptist invention of Anti-PAEDObaptism and the corresponding Age of Accountability is.... well.... obviously AGE. For them to claim that actually it's LUTHERANS and ANGLICANS obsessed with age and not they at all is.... well..... one one of a very long list of puzzling things they've stated.


God can choose to be merciful to ANY whom He chooses to be (It's not MY side of this debate shouting about what God can and can't do, lol).... but I see no Scripture that say God automatically "winks" at sin until a person celebrates their "Xth" birthday - and THEREFORE we are prohibited from administering means of grace to them until they reach that magical, unknowable age. And I think this whole argument (found NOWHERE in Scripture or in the church prior to 1523) fails to support this new dogmatic prohibition of baptism. IF they could support it (and they don't even try), it MIGHT suggest that baptism isn't necessary until that magical birthday but it wouldn't prove it prohibited. And that's the point: This 1523 dogmatic prohibition of paedobaptism.



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

See Exodus 11:1 - 12:36...


It's the account of the last plague..... that of the first born of all..... and the whole reason of the Passover.


The First born of humans of course could have 80 years old or 8 hours old.... it made no difference whatsoever (age isn't mentioned.... it didn't matter). Age is entirely irrelevant.


See Exodus 12:21-23 The Angel of Death came to all first born, but God provided a way for the first born of the Hebrews to escape and be exempted. The parents of the first born did this .... in obedience and faith.... trusting God's command. And when the Angel of Death came, the Angel recognized the blood and the faith and obedience of the parents, and their child (whether 8 hours old or 8 years old or 80 years old) was saved.


COULD God has just deleted the whole bit about the Passover, the Lamb, the Blood, etc., etc., etc. and just said "I'll exempt all Hebrew first born?" Sure. But He didn't.
COULD God have said, "But don't do this unless the first born is over the age of X because the Angel wouldn't do anything to those under that age?" Yes, but He didn't.
COULD God have said, "The faith and obedience of the parents means squat so forget all about the Passover, the Lamb, the blood, the door?" Sure. But He said the opposite.


The Bible clearly states that all humans are sinful - and deserving of the Angel of Death and Hell itself. Not just first born, but all born.
COULD God have just said, "Yeah, but no biggie.... I'll just wink at sin and forget all I said about it until the person reaches their Xth birthday (and I won't tell you what birthday that is). But He didn't.



One COULD believe that God nonetheless does that in every case of every person (Hindu, Atheist whatever) even though there's NOTHING that REMOTELY states that. One could even believe that children should be killed prior to that age as the only way to guarentee Heaven for them. But again, there's nothing in Scripture, nothing in the life of the church for over 1500 years, nothing that remotely indicates that is the truth.

We are told to GO.... Baptize..... Teach.
We do have Christians at least from 63 AD doing that for their children.
They saw the promise "for you and your children."
It was something done in faith, as family, in community.
Every faithful, Christian parent proceeded in faith and obedience for their children until 1523 when one German invented a dogma that says, "Thou art FORBIDDEN to do that!"



- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

OK, but that isn't a test applied by the paedobaptist churches, obviously. And the posts lately have been from other people trying to say that paedobaptists do believe in an age of accountability for the reception of Baptism when, in reality, they do not.

The age of accountability for the paedobaptist is the confirmation ceremony.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

The age of accountability for the paedobaptist is the confirmation ceremony.

When did we spin this thread from baptism to confirmation? The topic is baptism (specifically for those with disabilities). A so-called "age of accountability" does not exist for the paedobaptist, and that has been reiterated enough.

 

[MennoSota]

When did we spin this thread from baptism to confirmation? The topic is baptism (specifically for those with disabilities). A so-called "age of accountability" does not exist for the paedobaptist, and that has been reiterated enough.

The link is that people who practice infant baptism admit it is meaningless to the infant and thus it is a ceremony for parents to dedicate themselves to raising their children up to know about God. Baptists do the same thing when they have a baby dedication. Baptists recognize that the child must seek baptism in obedience to God before elders celebrate baptism with the child.
The difference is that there is a child who knows and wants to share their spiritual adoption with the community rather than be a passive and ignorant participant.

 

[atpollard]

When did we spin this thread from baptism to confirmation? The topic is baptism (specifically for those with disabilities). A so-called "age of accountability" does not exist for the paedobaptist, and that has been reiterated enough.

Why do you baptize?
I thought I knew why people baptized, but I am less sure now that I have heard so many arguments that claim baptism has nothing to do with an age when the saved owns their own faith rather than a baptism based on the declaration of faith by their parents.

This is what Credobaptists expect from baptism:

1 Corinthians 12:13 NASB For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Galatians 3:27 NASB For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

... do Paedobaptists expect this from all of their baptisms?
... does a personal faith ever come to play a part?
(The term “age of accountability” is being used to refer to an age of personal faith ... or personal reprobation. So is faith and salvation somehow linked to baptism?)

 

[Albion]

We certainly do believe that we put on Christ by baptism. In addition, we are forgiven our sins, given grace, and made a part of the body (church) of Christ. Most Credobaptists don't believe that it does much of anything at all but is just an obligation that must be done in order to show that the person has obeyed Christ by going through this otherwise meaningless ritual. That has been explained here on CH before by one or more Credobaptists.

 

[MennoSota]

We certainly do believe that we put on Christ by baptism. In addition, we are forgiven our sins, given grace, and made a part of the body (church) of Christ. Most Credobaptists don't believe that it does much of anything at all but is just an obligation that must be done in order to show that the person has obeyed Christ by going through this otherwise meaningless ritual. That has been explained here on CH before by one or more Credobaptists.

Albion, do you believe the physical work of baptism saves the infant and invokes God's gift of grace?
It sounds like you do.
If you are forcing God to give a gift based upon your works...is it actually a gracious act...or is it an act of obligation?

 

[atpollard]

1. Is personal experience of an individual the norm for dogma? Because there was NEVER a time when I did not have faith, NEVER a time when I did not love Jesus. But then I was baptized within one minute of my physical birth. And of course, John the Baptist was given faith before he was physically born.

Is this the norm for dogma?
Do most people experience faith from birth?
(From a medical perspective, most people have no memories before about age 5, so I am both skeptical and impressed that you can say with certainty that there was NEVER a time when you did not have faith.). [wink] However, on a serious note, congratulations on your testimony to God’s faithfulness.

What does scripture say?
(You just argued eloquently on another topic that children are not sinless, so is the biblical norm Mary and John the Baptist who were blessed from birth, or all of the multitudes who were commanded to repent?)

2. Why would God be unable to work until the receiver reaches a certain age? What is it about God that is rendered impotent by the age of a person?

When have I ever suggested that God is incapable of anything? Baptism is an act of men. It is a human hand that dunks/pours/sprinkles the water. It is an act of obedience, but God can clearly save without baptism (ask the thief on the cross).
I have stated over and over that it is not directly about age, it is about the apostolic commands to repent and believe and be baptized and doing all of them together. No one who is not repentant, should be baptized. No one who does not believe, should be baptized. No one who is baptized, should not repent and believe. Co-requisites are things that belong together.

And of course, whether the receiver is one minute old (as was I) or still in the womb (as was John the Baptist) or some older age (as evidently you were), 100% of this is the work of God. The receiver contributed NOTHING. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. Your being a child..... me being a baby.... John not yet being born.... has nothing to do with anything because none of us contributed, earned, merited or did ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. Not a thing. No thoughts, no intellect, no works, nothing. GOD is the Author and Lord and GIVER of life (as we all declare every time we share the ancient Creed..... and declared at the Ecumencial Council of Orange that Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Reformed and Anglicans all accept). If one has faith, there is ONE and ONLY ONE exclusive, singular, sole, individual reason - God GAVE it to them.

No argument from me. Salvation is from God.

So, tell me, where is this age requirement that Anabaptists are so obsessed about, the centerpiece of their whole dogma on this point, the entire issue of ANTI-PAEDObaptism? The invention in 1523 of the Anbaptists of Anti-PAEDObaptism/Age of Accountability/Credobaptism all flowed singularly from their radical synergism (not from any Scripture) because it's virtually necessitated by radical synergism.... if we accept their heresy in justification, we pretty much have to buy into their inventions here. Therefore, when a radical synergist also embraces the Anabaptists inventions in Baptism - that makes sense to me, and it's hard to discuss this with them because it's entirely intertwined and dependent upon their radical synergism.

Beats me, it was never about age for me.
For THIS Credobaptist, it is an issue that baptism is an ordinance linked to salvation. I originally thought that Paedobaptists linked baptism with salvation ... I am less sure after reading the recent posts of some Paedobaptists. Also linked to salvation are faith (the gift of God) and repentance (the response of man to the conviction of the Holy Spirit) and, of course, the command to go and get baptized (an act of obedience). A Credobaptist wants to see all three (faith, repentance and baptism) in those it welcomes to the body of Christ and allows to participate in communion.

Baptizing a baby on the declaration of faith of a parent in the hope that they will one day believe and repent (the work of God) does not meet the “at the same time” of a co-requisite.

To quote YOU, there are a number of CO-requisites , a point you use to stress but I realize have abandoned. The traditional baptism view embraces ALL of these (it's the Anabaptist who don't mention them at Baptism). The orthodox/traditional view doesn't ignore confession or repentance or any of the many other requisites (unlike the Anbaptists). We embrace them. Even mention some of them at the traditional order of service. IMO, the reason you abandoned your earlier emphasis on CO-reqisites is that in doing so, you are supporting the traditional/orthodox view. The Anabaptist point is entirely, wholly, exclusively about the necessity for God that there be a very specific, step-by-step, chronological SEQUENCE to all these things (or God is rendered impotent to bless), it's all about PRE-requisites. And age is KEY to it all because one must be old enough to do their own part in the saving of themselves, thus the whole age issue.

I think I explained Co-requisite above. The issue is believe, repent and be baptized all happening together at salvation (which is why Peter promises that they will then receive the Holy Spirit). It is not about age, it is about obeying all of the command at once and not some of it now and the rest at some unknown future date (if God wills it).

Theologically, it's not that parents and sponsors are fulfilling the mandate FOR the child (although I agree the wording of the ceremony seems like it). You yourself can confirm this by looking at any "order of service for baptism in an emergency." Here is what my Explanation of the Small Catechism says on page 216, "In urgent cases, any Christian may administer Holy Baptism. Take water and apply it saying, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." NOTHING about anyone confessing anything because theologically, the orthodox/traditional view does not consider it essential to the Sacrament... it is a CO-requisite of God but not a PRE-requisite to Baptism. If we're dealing with the usual case, a healthy child being baptized in church during worship, there's much about training up the child, bringing the child to regular Sunday worship, teaching them the Ten Commandments and the Creed, etc. etc. because as YOU put it, there are CO-requisites. Typically, where possible, it is not to be isolated from the community of the church (the way Anabaptists often do) it is not to be isolated from regular Sunday worship, Christian education, repentance, confession and so on. The traditional/orthodox view sees Baptism in the CONTEXT of the family and the church, embracing the CO-requisites (that you once stressed but then abandoned).

I like the Family Covenant. I just don’t see where scripture links it to Baptism (except MAYBE ‘households’ which have scriptural evidence to suggest that several households had no young children and most households had no way to tell one way or the other). I compare that to many references to masses of people hearing the gospel, believing, repenting and being baptized.

So, yes, the whole issue for the Anabaptist/Baptist is this min. AGE mandate (because radical synergists have to argue some are just inapt to do what they they to do to save themselves); it's a replacement of the CO-requisite point you once made with a very prescribed, step-by-step, chronological sequence of things that the RECEIVER must obey and perform or they cannot save themselves. All the hoops must be jumped through in a certain order (and this jumping is done individually - an abandonment of family, church, community). Of course, the Anabaptists have no Scriptures that remotely state this, but the 1523 invention was not because of Scripture but because of radical synergism.

Good thing I am not a 1523 Anabaptist. [LOL].
It is about salvation being linked to the apostolic commands to believe, repent, and be baptized ... three things of God and man that go together in those promised to receive the Holy Spirit ... it is not about age or chronological order.

I reject your entire premise.

Then it is a good thing you aren’t a Baptist.

I believe God is able to give faith to souls prior to adulthood. He did me. He did John the Baptist

So do I. I believe that you should baptize someone just as soon as they can repent and believe. God grants belief (faith). The Holy Spirit touches a heart and brings repentance (convicts us of sin and our need for a savior). We respond with obedience by getting baptized. So if a 4 year old shows signs of belief and repentance, then I see no reason not to welcome them into the body of Christ with baptism. If a 50 year old shows no signs of belief or repentance, then I see no reason to welcome them into the body of Christ with baptism.

[Sorry, Post is too long, so I need to stop here.]