As R.C. Sproul pointed out - we have not one example of Paedobaptism in all of scripture.
This is a fairly common criticism leveled against the paedobaptists. There are no examples of infants being baptized in the NT and therefore should be seen as a prohibited practice. How valid is this criticism?
It basically comes down to an individuals rules for interpreting Scripture. We use the words “permitted” and “prohibited” to establish two distinct approaches for interpreting Scripture.
1. THAT WHICH IS NOT PROHIBITED IS PERMITTED.
2. THAT WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED IS PROHIBITED.
Clearly, paedos affirm proposition #1. Paedo’s state there is no there is no specific text in Scripture that bars babies from baptism therefore is infant baptism is permitted.
Credos affirm proposition #2. There is no explicit example of “infant baptism” in the Bible. There is no explicit command to baptize infants. Therefore, paedobaptism should be prohibited.
Which one of these poles of interpretation is correct?
Generally speaking, it is my position Scripture clearly affirms proposition #1….that which is things not prohibited is permitted. We see this clearly in Paul’s statements concerning the laws of Christian liberty.
I Cor 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable.
I Cor 10:23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable.
The major problem with credobaptists as I see it, is they sometimes use both principles of Scripture sometimes leaning on the prohibited side, and other times leaning on the permitted side of interpretations.
Take for example, women taking holy communion. No where in Scripture is there an explicit example of women taking holy communion, and no where does Scripture explicitly state women can take Holy Communion. If the credos were consistent with the principle “that which is not specifically permitted, is prohibited” women would not take holy communion. Of course they could justify the practice of women taking Holy Communion with the belief, "well it is not prohibited so it is permitted." This would be the classic case of having your cake and eating it too.
Problems abound concerning “that is is not specifically permitted is prohibited” for interpreting Scripture. For example, the Churches of Christ denomination do not use musical instruments in worship. They believe no Scripture authorizes musical instruments, no evidence the early church used musical instruments, and certainly the NT gives no authority to add them now. The same could be said about the Amish, Mennonites, some Reformed/Presbyterians (through the Regulative Principle of Worship). Clearly, “if it is specifically not permitted, then it should be prohibited” interpretative principle is operative here.
Legalistic rules abound if one affirms the credo principles. For example, what about churches owning private property, usage of pictures and stain glasses windows within the church, usage of built in pulpits, displaying a crucifix or open cross symbol, and the recognition of Christmas and Easter as religious holidays, etc. The list can be endless of prohibited practices with loss of Christian freedom.
Horrendous abuses may about if a schizophrenic usage of this interpretative rule is used. Such as dancing is not permitted in the NT, therefore prohibited, but playing pool is not prohibited, therefore permitted. Or candles are not permitted for use in the NT, but no where does the NT prohibit fog machines and laser lights.
Paedobaptists baptize infants and allow women to take holy communion for the EXACT SAME REASON. Both are God’s work to mankind and you not called to restrict or withhold how God works through specific means to bring about his intended purposes. Baptism is seen as a remedy for original sin.