[Continuing on with my rebuttal of Wenxian's post.]
3. Roman Catholicism is linked to protestants by the ritual with the same name. This is obvious. Insomuch as we explain ourselves to be different, to new believers, it does not seem so.
And the point is? I can just as easily point out the fact that Roman Catholicism practise adult baptism, and what does that prove? Certain charismatic word-faith churches practise believers' baptism only (In fact, most if not all charismatic and pentecostal churches do that), so does this prove that Baptist churches are therefore indistinguishable from the charismatic word-faith churches, since they are linked by the same practice with the same name? Of course not!
The fruits are also very much the same: a church filled to the brim with unbelievers, although we should not see things for the fruit alone.
Proof? The fact of the matter is that historically, historic Reformed churches in general fare rather well in terms of keeping the faith, at least no worse than baptist churches. Guess which denomination Rick Warren is from? The Southern Baptist Convention, which believes in believers' baptism only. Thus, this statement is manifestly not true.
A road back to rome...
Baptists are also involved in the ecumenical movement, of which the most prominent is Rick Warren.
4. Infant baptism provides false security to young believers and to their parents.
... who do not know what infant baptism is about! And if they are not taught, people who profess to be believers and are baptized as adults could also have a sense of false security with regards to their salvation. This is not limited to infant baptism alone!
Hence many, confused by the evil one or by other means, will take tha [sic the] baptism of the infant as the real thing: they will assume the child is saved and will be lax with their teachings with the child - after all, who is gonna render the child unsaved when the child is already baptised and 'saved'?
Similarly, how many people in nominal baptists churches are assured by the pastor that they are saved because they have at one time or another said the 'Sinner's prayer' (i.e. Decisional regeneration)? How many people who have only made a 'decision for Christ' in a baptist church continue to live in sin, because they believe in a twisted form of 'Once saved, always saved', and thus they can sin as much as they like since they are saved no matter what happens? False assurance of salvation and misunderstanding of doctrine does not only happens in paedobaptist churches; it is common to both!
But my point of contention is: why create an opportunity to create confusion? Why make understanding for the lay masses so much more difficult with all the convental (sic) theology and the far-fetched convenant (sic) of grace?
The doctrine of the Trinity could be said to similarly be 'an opportunity to create confusion', since it is not easy to understand. A Jehovah Witness could use this same form of reasoning against it, so this form of reasoning is moot. As I have said, it would be better to read up more before comments are made about concepts which are hardly grasped (covenental theology and the convenent of grace).
The method of inferrence for infant baptism, is most contradictory with sola scriptura. This is leaning closely to hypocrisy, because some are reformed but in this case they seem to ignore the principle of scripture only.
This is a serious charge, and I challenge you, Wenxian, and anyone for that matter to substantiate it. This only shows the ignorance of the person making the charge to anyone who reads this. Does anyone really wants to make the charge that the Reformers who loudly proclaim Sola Scriptura do not see this 'contradiction' with their doctrine of infant baptism? Who dares claim to be smarter than the Westminster divines, the multitude of Reformed pastors, evangelists and theologians of the Reformation and Puritan ages? If so, prove it! Even Baptist scholars worth their salt do not make this sort of charge against us! They may disagree with us, but nobody would say that we violate the principle of Sola Scriptura, for the simple reason that we derive the doctrine of Infant baptism from Scripture! Whether Infant baptism is implied in Scriptures is disputed between historic Reformed and Baptists, but the fact of the matter is that we believe and can show proof from Scripture for the doctrine of Infant baptism, and as such it is not a denial of Sola Scriptura (which includes all implications from Scripture as well). I have shown this in my previous refutations of the 'evidences' presented that infant baptism is not ruled out from consideration of these passages and the doctrine could in fact be probably derived from some of those scriptures quoted, so the Credo-/Paedo-baptist issue has nothing whatsoever to do with Sola Scriptura.
Now, after showing forth the fallacious reasoning in these so-called evidences, some people may noticed that I have not as yet proven the doctrine of Infant baptism from the Scriptures. Yes, I have not done so, and that was not my intention. What I have intended to show is that these so-called evidences cannot be taken to prove or disprove infant baptism or credobaptism. The credo-baptist may be correct, and we wrong, but the proof must lie elsewhere, not in this type of superficial reading of the Scripture and fallacious reasoning. This is why I would ask people who are interested on the topic to read and think more before coming to their own position on the issue, and to think about the relation between the Old and New Covenents. Dr. James R. White, himself a Reformed Baptist, is moving in the correct direction when he defends his baptist position by looking at the relation between the Old and New Covenant. Whether he is right or not remains to be seen, but the fact of the matter is that his position at least engages the position correctly, unlike this type of superficial reasoning which has been refuted here.
P.S.: Since Wenxian came out from Anglicanism, I can probably understand a bit where he comes from, and thus his desire for a pure church is a mitigating factor in his case. But doctrine must be derived from the Scriptures, not from our personal preferences or previous church experiences.
PPS.: For especially Wenxian's benefit, and also since he does not allow comments on his blog on the topic anymore, the person whose website he learns the regulative principle of worship from, Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, is a former Reformed Baptist turned Presbyterian. Here is a page from his website on the topic of infant baptism. Also, looking at his last comment in reply to Vincent here, I would really ask him to exhibit more humility and stop acting so ... , for lack of a better term, juvenile. Stop condemning your borthers in Christ, for a start, by using less polemics and addressing the issue proper.