It seems to me that people have a mixed up perception of vows these days and so they have a mixed up perception of baptism. Or maybe it’s the other way around. Maybe people have a mixed up perception of vows because they have a mixed up perception of baptism. Allow me to explain.

You see, when someone is baptized, there is a vow made to the Lord. But somehow we think that if the person’s heart wasn’t right with God that that vow was not valid. To make my point, I am going to use an illustration.

Suppose I decide to buy a house. I meet with the realtor, I meet with the owner of the house, I sign a contract. I have now made a vow saying that I will buy the house. If I now decide a day or so later that I wasn’t sincere when I signed the contract (made that vow) that I am somehow not obligated to that contract? Of course this not the case. I am still obligated to that vow. Now suppose that the person who sold you the house decided that they weren’t sincere. Does that make the contract any less valid? Of course it does not. THAT IS WHAT A CONTRACT IS ALL ABOUT. To say a contract can be broken because a party is not sincere DEFEATS the purpose of the contract.

Now lets apply this to baptism. Suppose I become a Christian, and decide to be baptized (buy a house). I repented of my sins, and now I go to an elder of a Church and say I would like to be baptized (meet with the realtor and owner of the house. Of course in a perfect world I would already have had explained to me that I am by my baptism entering into a Covenant/Vow, and become a part of God’s covenant people). So I am now baptized. I have become a member of God’s visible Church here on this earth, A visible member of God’s covenant people (signed a contract). Suppose I decide that I was not sincere when I made that vow and become baptized. Does that make my vow, and thus my entry into the visible Church of God invalid? I should think not. I have obligations now. To whom much is given, much is required, and I now have much given to me. Now suppose the person who baptized me turns out to be a fraud in some way, or has decided that he is not sincere in his faith. Does that make my part in the vow of none effect? Not even. And why is this? Because he was a visible part of God’s church and he also had that obligation. It all goes back to what a vow is. A vow is just that, a vow.

All this is not to say that vows can’t be broken. But that they apply and are obligatory. If I break my vow, there are consequences.

Now, I would also like to point out a problem with today’s thinking of vows in regards to who can make them, and for whom. Take Samson for instance in the Bible. Consecrated from birth. He had no choice in the matter. He couldn’t grow up and simply say, I had no choice in my vow, therefore it doesn’t apply to me. The same way, that no Israelite in the Old Covenant could say, I didn’t choose to be born an Israelite, or to be circumcised therefore I am not obligated to the Covenant God has made with His people (Israel at that time). There is no way that could happen. If he did that there were consequences to his breaking of the Covenant. A vow he had no control over.

If you are a Christian, your children are YOUR children. They have no choice in the matter. And as such, they are disciples of Christ. They are members of God’s covenant. How do we know this. Because Peter said in Acts that the promise was unto us and our children and to them that are afar off. Well wait, he said “the” promise. He didn’t say “the new promise” It is obviously a continuation, a promise that is referred to. A promise that has been and is being fulfilled.

As circumcision in the Old Covenant, which the apostle Paul references, so baptism in the New Covenant is the means by which we, and our children visibly enter in to the Covenant. And just because our children didn’t make a choice doesn’t mean that they are not obligated. They can certainly fall away, but they will receive greater condemnation. And that puts more weight on the parents shoulders. You add to your child’s condemnation if you do not raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

This does not, as some like to say to me, negate God’s sovereignty. It does not preclude God’s election. Rather, I think it enhances God’s sovereignty. He is so sovereign, he determines which parents will raise his elect and which will not. But it still does not take away from our responsibility in the slightest.

Okay, I am sure I have gone enough different directions as to confuse my readers, so I will stop. I hope this makes some measure of sense.