Featured Padeo Baptist Covenant Children

problem with infant baptism is that have ZERO NT support for it, that we have to accept the viewpoint of covenant theology that states the New is a continuation of the Old, not a distinct seperate One, that Church is spiritual isreal etc...

have to accept ALL of that, and still stuck with no NT support for that practice!

 

That the signs are different is not the issue.

That they signify the same thing- you are now under the blessings of the covenant is the issue.

Circumcision is replaced by baptism. Unless the New Testament says, "But now you shall not apply this sign to your children because it is a different sign," it is reasonable to assume that you should continue to do so and a bit unreasonable to conclude that you should NOT do so.

 

In other words you have to believe the Bible because the New IS clearly a completion of the Old.

It does not scrap it! It fulfills it!

 

it is literally as Brand new thing, for the Old covenant was for JUST Isreal/Jews and god, while the new Covenant includes those who were not jews to be saved by their messiah yeshua!

Old covenant to isreal, new One to Church!

 

No, the Old Testament covers a time period of some two thousand years BEFORE Israel was born along with God's dealings with Israel.

It is new in the since that I have an incomplete china set and buy the last three remaining dishes to complete it- those dishes are brand new, but still part of a whole set.

 

1. What is the NT evidence that Circumcision is replaced directly by baptism?

2. Are you actively moving your Southern Baptist church to begin performing infant Baptism?

 

Old covenant was God dealing with man before the messiah, so used the Law as the gude to the people of god, but now under messiah and Gospel of grace, he deals with us by the Holy spirit!

 

I like John Piper's proposed view better (He proposed it to his church, they did not accept it...long story). He proposed that at his BAPTIST church, they allow SOME people to join, who after having spoken with an elder, are still convinced their infant baptism was valid. He would not have them PERFORM infant baptisms, but would not exclude one from membership based on it.

John's reasoning is this...to not exclude one from joining a local church over an issue that does not prevent one from being accepted by Christ. Ie, currently, Baptist churches will have to say: "We believe you are a true, sincere believer and a godly man/woman, but you can't join our church unless you are baptized as an adult."

I think the reason his argument make sense is that in some places, and possibly increasing here in the USA due to increased persecution/false teaching in churches...a Christian may find themselves in an area with only ONE true Gospel church...but it may be one that holds a different view of baptism than they do....should that person be excluded?

REGARDING SATURNNEPTUNE'S QUESTION...we only had 2 cases that I know of where this was a real issue at our church in the last 5 years...
-One is the wife a young man who was raised in our church, his parent's still attend...he went off to college and married a presbyterian...It is my understanding that the baptism issue is the main reason they attend a different church in town...She feels very strongly that she does not need to be re-baptized.
-the other case was the wife of a prospective couple...she grew up methodist...her husband had been baptist...she ended up being baptized to join. In her case, we sympathized, but simply told her, this is what our church does and believes...you're free to attend without joining as long as you want, but to join, you need to be baptized.

 

I would agree with Piper on this, probably the only thing I would agree with him on.

 

Oh, I bet we could find quite a few more!

 

I doubt it.

 

Colossians says it but, more than that, it is obvious.

I don't know of anyone who denies that circumcision was the primary sign of the covenant in the OT.

And I don't know of anyone who denies that baptism is the primary sign of the the covenant in the NT.


What NT evidence do you have that Jesus replaced the sacrifice of doves?

You don't have any explicit evidence. It is OBVIOUS that his sacrifice replaced the need for ALL sacrifices.

Asking for evidence for things that are obvious is like asking for evidence that elephants exist. It is unnecessary and unreasonable skepticism.

1. What does this have to do with the ISSUE we are discussing? Does this not distract from the merits of the arguments and focus instead on the arguers? Why ask?

2. No. I practice believer's baptism by immersion alone. I always have and probably always will. I am simply pointing out that the Presby's have good arguments for their position.

3. If I was not even a CHRISTIAN, much less a baptist, I could still argue these points, so why does it matter what I do? If I were a Satan worshiper I could still make logical, historical and exegetical arguments in favor of paedobaptism. I could conclude that it is what the Bible teaches (though I would not believe the Bible), it is what the historical evidence points to (though I would not care WHAT the church did) and it is perfectly logical.

Arguments are valid and sound or not REGARDLESS of whether the arguer applies them personally or not. We need to discuss the soundness of ARGUMENTS on a debate site- not personalities.

4. What if I said I WAS going to try to take the church paedo? Would you intervene? Is this the kind of thing we have to worry about on baptistboard? Do we have to be guarded, afraid people will try to hurt us with our words on a site that is supposed to be designed to discuss the validity and soundness of arguments? It is not good that I feel compelled to have to say this but- NO. I am not leading the church to be anything concerning baptism that it hasn't always been which is what I have always been.

One ought to be able to take a devil's advocate position just to examine his own personal beliefs and not have to explain himself on a site such as this.

 

I will agree with you on this: It is possible and desirable to be able to debate objectively and to present differing positions objectively. However, in the real world, I have not found many who can do this.

Where I would disagree is that I don't think the Presbyterians have good arguments for their position. I think the Arminian position is stronger, where they argue for infant baptism based on prevenient grace. However, that fails, too, because then we should be able to go out and baptize every baby in the world, based on that premise.

 

Good points.

The prevenient grace this doesn't fly though, imo, as well as it being a matter of the covenant.

The Presby's can point to the invincible truth that God has historically applied the sign of the covenant to the children of those IN the covenant.

I find that idea to be more compelling.

 

Yes, I see where they/you are coming from. I don't agree, but I am still able to see and admit the logic of it.

 

I meant to say "prevenient grace THING" not "prevenient grace THIS".

It's nice to be able to discuss arguments based on their own merits without personality corrupting the process.

If you think about it, a warm, winning personality corrupts arguments at least as bad as an abrasive one.

If one embraces an argument because the arguer is likeable the process has been corrupted.

I know, I know.... in a perfect world...

Any way, it is a breath of fresh air to be free from it for a few posts.

 

Yes, truly. I very much agree.

Sometimes I present the other side of an issue here, and people think that is what I am advocating, and then come the barbs.

I don't see how you can even have a debate or a fruitful one if all sides are not presented.