There is one main argument against paedobaptism (infant baptism). And that is this: You don't have to do it. Nothing in Scripture mandates it, and there's not one example of it. Everyone must repent and be baptized. No one must baptize their children who have yet to repent.
-
-
No sir, it does not. Give me that from the Apostles. Circumcision was a sign. That to which it pointed was regeneration. Which the elect alone have. It pointed to the washing of the Holy Spirit; not to other signs.
-
Circumcision was given to Abraham, right?
-
Yes sir
-
And Abraham knew God in the same way we do, right? By grace through faith?
-
He was saved by grace through faith, yes sir. Gen 15:6, etc.
-
(I’m saying so to account for WHY I see things this way - not expecting you to drop your books like you have never realized this was the infant Baptist’s view before)
-
& I see the NC in Christ’s blood as so radically superior to the OC (built on lesser things Gal 4, etc) that I’d need more than the discontinuity presented in *some* covenant signs in some Reformed camps claiming to see what just ain’t prescriptive. Same to you as to my view, sir
-
But Abraham was covered by Christ's blood as well, right? You don't need to live concurrent with the death of Christ to receive the benefits. The New Covenant is an ADMINISTRATION of the Covenant of Grace, which was introduced in the garden, and continues through the NC.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.