The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Covenant in Christ's blood

Ron,

I think what William is addressing is that which so many Baptists use to argue against paedobaptism, i.e., that since infants cannot believe, then they are not valid recipients of baptism because in the New Covenant, the command is "believe and be baptized". They then annex this argument by then stating that the "new" covenant consists of ONLY the elect and, as the argument goes, since only those who are elect can believe, then they are those baptized. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/dizzy.gif" alt="" /> But, they will be quick to deny, as you are of course aware, that not all who are baptized are elect. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hairout.gif" alt="" />

William's approach may not be the most effective to present a sound apologetic for paedobaptism, but it does present a legitimate question in regard to what many Baptists profess. It is especially so for those who have retained the "old" term of "believer's baptism[/i], which is a misnomer and embarrassingly contradictory to their confession that not all who are baptized are true believers. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> The term "credo baptism" is at least more appropriate to their position, for it is only to those who profess faith in Christ who are valid recipients, at least in their view.

But I do agree, that this matter should not detract from the pressing issue of helping our young friend understand the nature and extent, continuity and discontinuity of the covenant of grace in its administration between the OT and NT. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,