The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Infant baptism

Mike,<br><br>I'm replying to you not with any vain notion that what I have to say will change your mind about paedobaptism; at least not at this point in time! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/evilgrin.gif" alt="evilgrin" title="evilgrin[/img] But rather, I simply want to correct some obvious errors you are espousing concerning a few things.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p>This is one of the standard arguments used by Baptists and one that simply doesn't work because in several places it is said that entire "households" were baptized. The onus is upon Baptists to prove that "household" excludes children. Something which is impossible to do. Secondly paedobaptism is "assumed" because of the practice of bringing children into an"external" covenant relationship which was done for thousands of years prior to Christ is nowhere said to have been discontinued. And lastly, in the matter of the "absurdity of an infant being able to exercise abstract thinking." I hope you realize the absurdity, error and danger of this assertion. Normally, when speaking of adults, one is justified by faith alone, which undeniably must include and require an intellectual aspect. But surely, the essence of faith is not intellectual but spiritual. It is the soul itself that reaches out and takes hold of Christ. Faith is the fruit of regeneration, that sovereign, invisible working of the Spirit which is totally independent of the individual. Thus, although an infant, child, mentally handicapped, etc., cannot express faith, intellectually as an adult can, it exists nonetheless. Please don't interpret this to mean that all baptised infants have faith..... I certainly don't believe that and have adamantly argued to the contrary for years. But what I am saying is that don't make the opposite mistake and think that non-adults cannot have faith and be saved.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.[quote]This is true, but only partially true. Baptists seem to be trapped in defining baptism subjectively at the expense of the most important aspect of it, that being objectively where God has sworn by Himself to save all who come to Him by faith, which was first signified and sealed in circumcision and now in baptism. Regardless of who receives baptism, it ALWAYS signifies God's faithfulness to keep His promise to those who believe in Christ. It may or may not apply to the individual who is baptized (subject), but it is always true in its significance in regard to the One from Whom salvation comes (object).[quote]What does the Roman rule have to do with the Theocracy?</font><hr></blockquote><p>Forgive me for using this quote to actually speak to a related issue which I have already addressed below in another direct reply to you. Circumcision did NOT belong to "Israel" as a nation. It was instituted by God and given to Abraham long before the nation of Israel even came into being. Was not Abraham given circumcision as a token of the faith which he had when he was yet childless? Did God not promise him that he would be the "father of many nations, which in the N.T. we learn that it was a promise that those of like faith would dwell in all the nations of the earth? Was not the promise of God to Abraham to him and "his seed", which is Christ and all who believe on Christ like Abraham? Thus the promise and the sign of faith was given to Abraham and the elect of Christ. At its institution, it had a spiritual significance and had nothing to do with a national significance or a Theocracy. Paul's emphasis in his epistles on justification by faith alone is immutably grounded in this truth; "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29).<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Another unfortunate half-truth is found in this statement. Yes, the nation of Israel as a Theocracy is gone. Yes, there are discontinuities between the nation of Israel and the N.T. church. But what seems to be constantly overlooked is that "not all Israel is Israel"; i.e., within the nation of Israel there was the true Israel, which was and continues to be the Church (Grk: ekklesia=called out ones). Stephen refers to those true believers that lived in the O.T. the "church in the wilderness", (Acts 7:38). And Paul refers to the N.T. Church as the "Israel of God", (Gal 6:16). There is a clear continuity between the O.T. and N.T., in that the Church has always been one. The sign given to the O.T. CHURCH was circumcision which pointed forward to Christ. The sign given to the N.T. CHURCH is baptism which points back to Christ AND forward to His return.<br><br>Lastly, I stand with you and say that I have not and will not let the issue of baptism as held by many Baptists be a matter of disfellowship. I have accepted most all Baptists who have even petitioned for membership. But I have been excluded by nearly every Baptist when the situation was reversed. I find unwarranted schism on both sides and I have no hope that it will ever be resolved before Christ returns. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/sad.gif" alt="sad" title="sad[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,