The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Infant baptism

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Where does it speak of any age? It isn't a matter of age, but a sign of a covenant. The difference is that we orthodox folks see a continuity of the familial covenant in both testaments.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>I stand by my original statement, nowhere does it speak of the baptism of anyone but believers. The infant was inserted because I was showing the absurbity of an infant being able to exercise abstract thinking.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I think we all presume to a certain degree. Or are you going to tell me you know who the elect are?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Presuming that scripture says something when it doesn't is not the same as presuming who the elect are. I don't understand your question. Where did I ever say I presume who is elect?<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Well, the early church seemed to suppot it, as well as a millenia of church history. <br><br>Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: <br>Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. <br><br>Perhaps you would take a stab at this thread then: Who Departed?.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Baptism is a sign of the Christian's relationship to Christ, just as Circumcision was a sign of the descendents of Abraham's relationship to the living God<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]So, when the Jewish peoples were under other authorities they didn't circumcise? Because I believe they were under Roman rule and still practicing this?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>What does the Roman rule have to do with the Theocracy? Because I'm under the rule of the U.S., should I cease from ordinances of my Christian faith?<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]But not every Jew was elect. That's your dilemma. My child was born into a covenant relationship as well, and therefore receives the sign. elect or not, just as Jewish males did.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>What dilemma? It isn't the sign that saves but the profession. The sign of circumcision was given to show that the cutting away of sin was required to be included into the house of faith. Baptism, shows the washing away of sin by Christ is required for inclusion into the body of Christ. Just as not all that were circumsized were of the house of faith, so also not all that are baptized, I agree. Our new relationship is effected by the washing of the Holy Spirit, not by water. Baptizing non-believers has no purpose and can be deceptive as I mentioned previously, some place all their hope in their baptism. Didn't the Israelites completely miss the point about circumcsion? The church is inadvertantly giving this same hope.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]This isn't how it worked in the OT. Could you provide some scripture showing the discontinuity?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>All of scripture speaks of the nation of Israel as the people of God and the Church as descendents of spiritual Abraham. They are not identical. All of scripture shows the discontinuity.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Again, some scripture, stating this is the specific way?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Where does scripture show that baptism preceeded a profession of faith?<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Again, this is opposite how it worked in the OT. All Jewish people were born into the covenant, but not all were elect. There are several arguments made here for the VISIBLE CHURCH vs. the TRUE CHURCH. I suggest reading them, or showing you can list the elect infallibly.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Answered above, the difference between a theocracy and the church.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] I can show several baptisms where the recipients profession isn't recorded. That is the dilemma for you though. You honestly don't uphold believers baptism, because you cannot know a persons heart infallibly. Only God knows His elect. You uphold PROFESSORS BAPTISM. You (uh oh) presume upon that profession, the individuals possibility of true election. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br>I believe that a believer should be baptized is correct. Because we aren't certain who are believers doesn't negate our responsibility to administer the ordinance faithfully. <br><br>Finally, William, I appreciate all the questions you raised, but they do not change my view. I believe that the OT economy differs from the NT and that the rule of God over Israel is not the same as His rule over the TRUE church. I must confess though, the church today is where lost Israel was, so they are very much identical. The church has lost much of the truth today. I would never divide over Baptism, but I would not have my children baptized unless they requested it on profession of faith out of obedience to the word of God. Does this make us any less brothers in Christ? No, because baptism is the sign, not the effectual cause. I believe we all are growing in knowledge by the Holy Spirit, and I would never say my arguments outweigh yours. That would be presumption. I see no direct support for baptizing prior to professions of faith. That is it, plain and simple.<br><br>Praise Him,<br>Mike<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>